Trafficking in women for sexual exploitation: Building Australian knowledge

Introduction

Human trafficking ¹ is a topic of concern for both social justice activists and researchers alike. It has been brought more clearly into focus as global movements increase and countries step up border security to reduce illegal migration. Understandings of trafficking vary considerably. It has been considered as a ‘moral problem, a criminal problem, a migration problem, a human rights problem, a public order problem or a labour issue problem depending on who is defining it’ (The Foundation Against Trafficking in Women, 1998, cited in Melrose and Barrett, 2006: 116); or indeed, all of the above.

To examine and critique contemporary knowledge and knowledge development on human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation in Australia, the first author systematically searched key social science data bases (IBBS, SSA, APAIS and MAIS) for the years 2005–2010, using the search terms ‘sex’, ‘traffick*’ and ‘research OR method*’. This time frame was chosen to examine developments since a special edition of International Migration in 2005 presented a global view of research and policy (e.g. see Brennan, 2005; Laczko, 2005; Piper, 2005), and to capture recent changes in Australia’s visa framework. This search strategy was augmented by both an internet search specifically of government and educational settings and perusing the reference lists of recent key readings. More than 100 articles were identified, but as anticipated by the findings of Gozdziak and Bump (2008, cited in Potocky, 2010a), less than 10 percent of these were reports of research.

Although 24 articles were Australian in origin, only one of these reported on research conducted. This search identified a number of core challenges to developing accurate knowledge in this area: defining trafficking, the clandestine nature of the problem, limited empirical data, and narrowly focused research which often lacks appropriate methodological and ethical rigour.

The article discusses key aspects of the accepted UN (2000) definition of human trafficking and delineates this from related problems such as people smuggling. Attention is given to the extent and scope of sex trafficking, both globally and specifically in Australia, with examination of current responses in the latter. The article examines existing knowledge development strategies and the challenges to these. Recommendations are made for a broad research strategy which is required by Australia as a key destination country, to ensure both an ongoing contribution to knowledge and responsiveness to this challenging and globally significant problem.

Defining the problem

The current accepted definition of human trafficking was developed by the UN (2000) when it adopted the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (also known as the Palermo Protocol). This protocol has shaped the legislative and policy response of Australia along with other jurisdictions, with responses focusing on prevention, protection and prosecution. Crucial concepts in the current definition are that it involves movement of people, although not necessarily across international borders, and their receipt or harbouring, with the use of deception or coercion for the purposes of exploitation (Fergus, 2005). Consent by the victim is not considered relevant, because of the duplicitous means employed.

Laczko (2005) reminds us that this definition has changed considerably since 1994 when the key features were the crossing of international borders, illegal entry into countries and money changing hands. This earlier definition is arguably now more aligned with the current understanding of people smuggling. Lusk and Lucas (2009), however, risk oversimplifying the issue by claiming the key difference is that smuggling is voluntary. Skilbrei and Tveit’s (2008) research challenges this idea of the willing migrant, by highlighting similarities between those who are smuggled and those who are trafficked. Their comparison of Nigerian women trafficked or smuggled to Norway reported similar, multi-layered ‘push factors’: a culture of migration, combined with societal instability, leading to situations of personal desperation. These patterns are also reflected in the work of Hodge (2008), Kim et al. (2010), Roby (2005) and Rushing (2006). As well as similarities between the background circumstances of the two groups, it is also relevant to note the acknowledged increased risk of migrants (Rushing, 2006), particularly those who use smugglers, subsequently becoming victims of trafficking (Skilbrei and Tveit, 2008).

It is, however, important to articulate the differences between the two issues. Unlike trafficking, people smuggling always involves the crossing of international borders; it is the facilitation, for profit, of the illegal entry of a person into a country of which they are not a resident (David, 2010). Smugglers profit from transporting individuals to destination countries, whereas traffickers profit from the individual’s ongoing exploitation in these destination country/ies. Recent findings from the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC) community awareness and attitudes survey (Larsen, 2010), perhaps unsurprisingly, found that 61 percent of the 1617 participants, confused people trafficking and smuggling; with only 9 percent of participants able to give the correct definition of trafficking. This is despite what Schloenhardt et al. (2009: 27) describe as ‘greater public awareness’ in Australia. Confusion occurs too, beyond the general public, with researchers at times merging these two issues. A recent qualitative study in the US examined ‘trafficking or smuggling’ for sexual exploitation of Korean individuals (Choo et al., 2010). Without differentiating or comparing trafficking and smuggling experiences, researchers and those who use research as the ‘foundation of policy and interventions’ (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2010: 2) risk missing important data. Such lack of differentiation, or over-labelling of a problem, can, as noted by Androff (2011: 211), ‘[render] the term meaningless’, with flow-on effects for both our social and legal responses. For example, Choo et al. (2010) do not clarify or consider if participants were trafficked from Korea, or were smuggled from that country and then trafficked within US borders. Clearer delineation and understanding of these processes is needed to inform both policy development and service provision: where and how victims are identified, and the degree to which services should be located in countries of origin or destination countries. Without clarity, assumptions can intervene. And it is clear that current understandings of trafficking ‘victims’ is, in part, shaped by stereotypes, into which many do not fit (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2010; Larsen, 2010).

Challenges in defining the problem

Not only is there at times confusion between smuggling and trafficking, but similarly a number of authors have commented on the conflation of ‘victims of trafficking for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation’ and ‘migrant sex workers’ (Jeffreys, 2009; Tyldum and Brunovskis, 2005). Further, Jeffreys (2009) argues that such blurring of boundaries creates more difficulties for the women who should be assisted: taking away the rights of migrant sex workers makes them more vulnerable to traffickers. Conversely, Hodge (2008) argues that there is evidence to suggest that more lenient approaches to sex work (specifically, legalizing adult prostitution) do not result in reduced illegal forms of sex work. Whilst it is clear that trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation and prostitution are issues on which there is a spectrum of often opposing views (Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, 2010; Melrose and Barrett, 2006), it is beyond the scope of this article to enter into this ideological debate.

It is also clear that the women involved may themselves define their situations variably. Lebov (2009) notes, in a study of trafficking in Scotland, that women who had sought help from Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) were more likely to define themselves as ‘trafficked’ than those apprehended by police. Rushing (2006) made similar observations. In her study of migration and sexual exploitation in Vietnam, none of the participants who were ‘forced into sex work’ (Rushing, 2006: 485), and who were at that time still working in that industry, described themselves as trafficked. They often reported instead that they had been ‘tricked’. Perhaps not seeing themselves as victims of trafficking allows agency for these women. The challenge to those conducting research, developing policy and providing services is how to present what we do in accessible and sensitive language, bearing in mind that many women may eschew the label of victim.

The spectrum of trafficking in Australia

Evidently trafficking for sexual exploitation involves a spectrum of activities. At the extreme end, women may be trafficked ‘illegally’. In these instances they are kidnapped or threatened, brought to the country on falsified documents, held against their will, and forced to work in prostitution. Whilst this may be the more sensational story and perhaps the stereotype, this is not thought to be reflective of the experiences of the majority of women (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2010); indeed, Schloenhardt et al. (2009) claim that there have been no documented cases of such extremity in Australia. Women may also be brought into the country illegally, whilst knowing that they will be working in the sex industry. There are also likely to be many women who enter Australia legally, perhaps on student or visitor visas, who have varied understanding of the ‘job’ they will be engaged in, or the debts they will need to repay. Brunovskis and Surtees (2010) challenge us to consider how we view these women at this ‘less coercive’ end of the spectrum. Are they somehow perceived as less worthy of assistance? Understanding of trafficking needs to be shaped not only by clear definitions, but also by an appreciation of the likely diversity of this experience, with a view to improving capacity to respond effectively to this issue.

Extent of trafficking

There are considerable challenges in mapping the extent of people trafficking, partly due to its nature: hidden, illegal, and in the context of increased global movement and people smuggling. It is also affected by inconsistent border security and varying interpretations of the definition, and the varied focus on ‘intent’ versus ‘outcome’ (Piper, 2005). Added to these challenges is the reality that ‘not all elements of each stage of the process are illegal in all places or at all times’ (O’Connell-Davidson, 2002, cited in Melrose and Barrett, 2006: 113).

What exist currently are less than reliable estimates, with the likelihood that who defines the problem and their motivations will shape the figures presented (Androff, 2011). It is, however, commonly, and perhaps conservatively, reported that around 800,000 people are trafficked globally each year (Phillips, 2008). Both Potocky (2010b) and Tyldum (2010) have recently argued, however, that worldwide estimates are of limited application: providing little useful information at a national or regional level. Tyldum (2010) suggests that a bottom-up approach – localized research – which can inform responsive policy and legal reform (Schloenhardt et al., 2009) is a more appropriate strategy. The AIC has begun such a process. With funding support from the Federal government in 2007, the AIC has embarked on a research program, focusing on human trafficking, including trafficking for labour and adoption (David, 2010). This strategy has a particular emphasis on developing localized Asia-Pacific knowledge; to date the AIC have facilitated a number of cross-disciplinary forums in the region, generated publications to share knowledge garnered and monitored trafficking activity.

It is largely accepted that the majority of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation are women (e.g. see Larsen, 2010; Putt, 2005), originating from African, Asian and Eastern European countries. Trends in Europe show considerable numbers of women trafficked particularly from the former Soviet Union (Melrose and Barrett, 2006). More recently, however, the growth of the European Union (EU) is argued to be creating a downward trend in these numbers (Lebov, 2009). With individuals able to migrate freely and so live and work within Europe, trafficking of nationals within the EU may be becoming a less profitable venture. Subsequently in Scotland, recent research shows that most women were trafficked from Asian and African countries (Lebov, 2009). In Australia the majority of women are identified as coming from South East Asian countries (Larsen, 2010), predominantly Thailand, with smaller groups from Indonesia and Malaysia (Attorney General’s Department, 2007, cited in Schloenhardt and Loong, 2010).

The Australian situation

The first challenge in protecting trafficking victims is identifying who they are, but ‘[in] Australia we don’t really have any comprehensive data on the scale of the issue’ (Broderick, 2008: 2). A variety of figures have been reported in a range of documents and research reports. NGO estimates range from 400 to 1000 women per year (Project Respect and Scarlett Alliance, cited in Piper, 2005). Putt (2005) unsurprisingly, however, notes that intelligence assessments put the number at less than 100. Clarifying these estimates is not possible as there is currently no comprehensive data collection or reporting system. Whilst this is not a problem confined to Australia, Piper (2005) argues that Oceania is the region which has been subject to least research into trafficking. This is clearly reflected in the paucity of research uncovered in this review of recent literature.

Australia’s response: A changing legalistic framework

Between 2004 and 2009, Australia’s response focused on prosecution of traffickers rather than protecting victims’ rights, with a legalistic response to trafficking dominant. Support services were provided to victims, but access to these services, as well as to interim visas (e.g. the 30-day Bridging Visa F), were dependent upon victims’ willingness to cooperate with police in pursuing prosecution of traffickers. For victims to be eligible for a longer-term visa, they needed to be able to make a significant contribution to a criminal case. This approach of conditional support for victims drew clear criticism from the US Department of State in their annual report on trafficking (Phillips, 2008).

In June 2009, changes were made to the People Trafficking Visa Framework (DIAC, 2010), to ‘separate victim support from visa status’ (Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, 2010: 96). Important changes included: the removal of the requirement for victims to cooperate with police to be eligible for a bridging visa; the extension of stay on the Bridging Visa F from 30 days to 45 days; and removal of the requirement for victims to hold a visa issued under the People Trafficking Visa Framework to access support programs. The latter ensures that any existing rights of these women who hold alternative visas, to work, etc., are maintained. It is also significant that victims and immediate family members are now able to apply for permanent protection visas if the victim contributes to a criminal investigation. Previously, to be eligible, individuals had to make a ‘significant’ contribution, as determined by the Australian Federal Police. In some respects, however, it could be argued that the prosecution of traffickers still remains a higher priority than support for victims. Even though ‘victims are now eligible for assistance when they are willing, but not able, to assist with an investigation and prosecution of a people trafficking offence’ (Drug and Crime Prevention Committee, 2010: 95), they still need to be ‘willing’. This ignores the very power differential and likely threats which underlie the trafficking experience, as well as the likelihood that victims need to be prepared to take a public stand against what may be organized crime groups. These changes have, however, been endorsed by the most recent Trafficking in Persons annual report (US Department of State, 2010) as complying with the minimum standards required for the elimination of trafficking.

Australia: Supporting victims

It is heartening to see that the recent implementation of changes to the visa framework appears to have resulted in greater access to the victim support program. In the 12 months between January 2009 and January 2010, 57 individuals are reported to have received a range of services, including financial support, legal assistance, health and housing services (US Department of State, 2010). This compares to the 107 individuals who accessed support from 2004–2008 (Broderick, 2008). The number of people who have been given Trafficking Visas has also increased over recent years. Between 2004 and 2008, 176 visas were issued; more than half were Bridging Visas, and there were no permanent visas (DIAC, 2005–2008, cited in Larsen et al., 2009). In subsequent years, however, there have been some 26 Permanent Witness Protection visas issued (DIAC, 2009; O’Connor, 2010).

Despite there having been more than 270 investigations of trafficking offences in Australia since 2004, there have been only been nine convictions (this includes labour trafficking) (O’Connor, 2010). Most investigations have concluded that there is not enough evidence to prosecute; a number have been quashed on appeal. These data on visas issued and prosecutions finalized indicates a number of things. In the time period before the 2009 visa changes, whilst the majority of trafficking victims were deemed useful enough to be given leave to remain in the country during the criminal investigation (Criminal Justice Stay Visa recipients), few were allowed to remain for any time beyond this (Temporary Witness Protection) and less than 2 percent were offered permanent protection. Decisions about offering ongoing temporary or permanent protection were assessed on the basis of the significance of the individual’s contribution to the prosecution and their cooperation, as well as the assessed risk to them if they were returned to their home country. The accuracy of these risk assessments was not tested. Some very limited data exist on women returned to Thailand under a Return and Rehabilitation scheme (Larsen et al., 2009). This shows that between 2002 and 2007, 37 women were returned to Thailand from Australia. Whilst it is ‘believed that a number of these were trafficked women’ (Larsen et al., 2009: 27), the reasons for their return were not recorded. Schloenhardt and Loong (2010) advise that data in relation to this scheme more broadly is lacking: it is not known how many women who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation have been returned to their countries of origin, nor how this may have occurred or what has subsequently happened to these women. International research remains unclear on outcomes for women who escape trafficking and are re-settled. Brennan (2005) describes rejection of women in settlement communities in the US; Jha and Madison (2011) note similar rejection in returnees’ home villages in Nepal. Crawford and Kaufman’s (2008) data, also about returnees to Nepal, indicates however, that with support and jobs skills women are able to return and reintegrate. These early trends should lead us to question and examine where and when services are provided and the outcomes of such services. Incorporating such a research focus would seem imperative for a destination country with a Return and Rehabilitation program such as Australia.

With the 2009 changes to visas and support services, it is vital to gather and make available up-to-date data. Being able to compare the number of Bridging Visas issued with the number of women accessing the victim support program for example will provide at least a crude measure of the means of trafficking (that is illegal entry versus travelling on legitimate visas), and some sense of the diversity of the group, which is necessary for framing policy and practice responses. It will also be important to compare the trends in visas issued. Whilst the data appear to indicate that the removal of the need for a ‘significant’ contribution to criminal proceedings has improved access to longer-term protection in Australia, victims’ journeys through this system remain unclear, as well as their outcomes. Understanding of these ongoing issues requires transparent data gathering and reporting and a commitment to ongoing research.

Building knowledge

Many ethical and methodological challenges to research in this area have been identified (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2010). Tyldum and Brunovskis (2005) particularly argue that it is not possible to explore the current experiences of those have been trafficked and are being held in servitude, due to the fear held by those women of being identified and deported, or fear of their traffickers. Most research therefore focuses on those women who have been emancipated, although research interest has often remained in the trafficking act, not ‘what happens next’, that is, the effects of trafficking (Brennan, 2005), including the outcomes of welfare-oriented or legal interventions. Potocky (2010b) and Crawford and Kaufman (2008) are exceptions to this. Findings from these studies indicate the need for destination and originating/return countries to work closely together to ensure that the longer-term needs for returning women are understood and able to be addressed.

The extreme difficulty in locating victims has been commented on in much research (Piper, 2005), even when local, bilingual researchers have been used. Brennan (2005) identifies the key challenges to locating women as being that they are dispersed, and not located in one community. This has particular implications for building research in the geographically vast context of Australia. Women are also noted to be diverse in their experiences of trafficking, including recruitment strategies, source countries, and previous experiences of work in prostitution; their hidden and vulnerable nature is also noted. Therefore, much of the research to date has relied on small, unrepresentative samples, with limited generalizability. An associated limitation is that any research conducted directly with victims typically relies on collecting data from women who are in contact with victim support programs (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2010).

This necessarily biases the data that are collected. It excludes the views and experiences of those who are perhaps most vulnerable and unable to access supports, as well as those women who do not identify themselves as ‘victims’ (Lebov, 2009) or who choose not to utilize services, perhaps because they have access to sufficient material resources (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2007).

It is likely then that the current knowledge about women’s experiences of trafficking for sexual exploitation does not reflect the true extent or complexity of experiences. If it is accepted that research shapes policy and practice in this emerging area, then gathering accurate data about diverse experiences is imperative. Typically research has gathered data from service providers, police/officials, and interest groups (e.g. Atauz et al., 2009; Brunovskis and Surtees, 2007; David, 2010; Lebov, 2009; Munro, 2006). While some research has included direct interviews with women who had been trafficked (e.g. see Brunovskis and Surtees, 2007), the difficulties with both locating and engaging these women has been noted above. Related research reported by Jeffreys (2009) with migrant sex workers, conducted since the 1990s, highlights several factors which may be of use when considering research with those who have been trafficked. These five studies typically gathered data from Thai and/or Chinese migrant sex workers, via questionnaires, usually administered by peer educators/researchers who spoke the participants’ language. This strategy has been shown to be successful in recruiting quite a hidden group of participants to research. Brunovskis and Surtees’s (2007) research also highlights the value of utilizing local, and culturally appropriate, networks.

A number of studies located begin with sex workers as their study population (e.g. see Rushing, 2006). In Oslo, Tyldum and Brunovskis (2005) sought to investigate if any such workers had been trafficked. They initiated this study by telephoning women who advertised sex services and asked questions of the industry. They report this was a successful strategy in developing questions for a subsequent questionnaire, which they later administered with women in prostitution, emancipated trafficked women and key agency respondents. Choo et al. (2010) however, report a much more negative response to attempted telephone recruitment in their US study, deeming it largely unsuccessful and noting often hostile responses. These authors, however, do not indicate the gender of the researcher making the telephone call, which would seem to be a potentially influential factor. Choo et al. (2010) do comment, however, on the value of snowball sampling, as do Tyldum and Brunovskis (2005). It is likely that the success of this strategy is in part due to the culturally and linguistically specific sub-populations they were seeking – given Brennan’s (2005) earlier description of the more typically diverse and dispersed nature of trafficked women. Interestingly although Brunovskis initially supported the use of such a sampling strategy, more recently, she and a colleague have reflected on the ethical aspects of this (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2010). They now question whether in research in this field ‘researchers have sufficient control over the recruitment process to know definitively that there are no risks for either of the parties involved’ (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2010: 12).

Current issues: Trends, challenges and opportunities

There is no doubt that human trafficking is a challenging area in which to build reliable and accurate knowledge and respond to effectively. Considerable gaps remain in our knowledge of trafficking of women to Australia for sexual exploitation. Although there has been some criticism (IOM, 2008, cited in Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, 2010) that the focus of research to date has overemphasized this group of victims, given that they are by far the majority it seems pertinent that we prioritize our understanding of this aspect of the problem. This should not be seen to diminish the experiences of those trafficked for labour (outside of the sex trade) or the experiences of men and boys. It is evident that research has been hampered by a number of constraints, particularly difficulty in accessing current, representative data on these experiences. To build a robust and useful knowledge base will require a broad umbrella of research, incorporating both ‘numbers and stories’ from a range of perspectives, beyond a legal and criminal focus, with attention to diversity of experiences.

A review of existing research methodologies would suggest that a coordinated research strategy is necessary, overseeing a range of localized, perhaps state-based, projects. The National Roundtable on People Trafficking (O’Connor, 2010), bringing together representatives from the Commonwealth Government with key NGOs, with its clear consultation and policy focus, would seem well placed to take an advisory role in this. And as Brennan (2005) argues, strong collaborations between academics, trafficked women and social support services are vital to building effective responses to this problem.

Ensuring that the voices of women who have experienced trafficking are heard is likely to be improved by targeting specific cultural groups, beginning with women from Thailand, as the most frequent victims of sex trafficking in Australia. The use of bilingual researchers would seem a beneficial strategy, and one that has been used successfully in previous research (Jeffreys, 2009) as well as in health education practice with migrant sex workers. The sensitive nature of such research, however, with the potential for vicarious trauma for those hearing these stories (Gilgun, 2008) must be taken into account, with adequate support, resourcing and debriefing for those collecting the data. Whilst the gender of researchers has not been explicitly addressed in previous studies, it would seem important, in research which connects to women victims directly, to be mindful of the gendered experiences of exploitation these women have had and to respond to this sensitively.

It will be important in such research to delineate smuggling and trafficking, but to also examine where these experiences intersect, for example those women who are smuggled into the country, but who become victims of trafficking because of their vulnerable status, perhaps due to lack of work options or commitments to supporting their family in their home country. This draws our attention more broadly to women who are in Australia legitimately, but who are vulnerable to exploitation in our communities: those who are forced to migrate due to poor opportunities and conditions in their home country; women who are married into servile arrangements; women in remote or male-dominated communities, for example mining towns. Whilst acknowledging that human trafficking is a global concern, requiring inter-country collaboration, we also need to focus some attention in our own backyard.

Good research ultimately requires commitment, the provision of adequate time and resources, and a longer-term view. Evaluation of services currently being provided is necessary. With the Australian visa framework changes now more than three years old it is time to examine the impact of these changes on women’s access to both short-term and ongoing protection and support. On the face of very basic data, it appears that more women are utilizing the victim support service; but how have visa changes affected service delivery and how do women experience these services and those provided by other NGOs?

Conclusion

Trafficking of women for sexual exploitation is a global problem. Despite Australia’s relative geographic isolation, it is a destination country, mostly for victims from South-East Asia. Many challenges to developing accurate and useful knowledge about this problem exist: varied and poorly understood definitions, the hidden nature of the problem; limited existing data, and narrowly focused and uncoordinated research. This article suggests the need for an overarching research strategy, bringing together localized responses. Building and sustaining partnerships between service providers and researchers is vital. Ongoing reflection on ethical methodology will be necessary, to ensure both rigour and attention to the diversity of trafficking experiences; research should not just perpetuate existing stereotypes. Longitudinal and outcome-focused research must form an integral part of the agenda. We need to better understand the trajectories of women identified as victims, to evaluate our current responses, in terms of effectiveness in meeting needs, as well as to consider to what degree our responses ensure that Australia is meeting its Human Rights obligations.