Draft version (21.07.2011)
1 / 15
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
1 Regional Thematic Working Group on International Migration including Human Trafficking (2008) Situation Report on
International Migration in East and South-East Asia, 256 pages
Draft version (21.07.2011)
2 / 15
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.
2 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)
Draft version (21.07.2011)
3 / 15
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 Thai-
Myanmar 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.
4 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
Draft version (21.07.2011)
4 / 15
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 child-
friendly.
8 Asia ACTs (2011) Executive summary of the Southeast Asia Conference on children on the move, unpublished, see Workshop 4
results pp. 39-40
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)
5 / 15
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
attaché 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
Draft version (21.07.2011)
6 / 15
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;
9 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
Draft version (21.07.2011)
7 / 15
- 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)
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)
8 / 15
- 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
Draft version (21.07.2011)
9 / 15
- 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.
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
Geographic focus areas:
To be determined
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):
Project partners (organizations to be identified)
TDHIF MOs (organizations to be identified)
Version: 2
Intervention logic Indicators 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:
By the end of 2016, ASEAN stakeholders
have shifted from a security paradigm16
to a protection paradigm17 in their
policies and practices aiming at the
protection of all children on the move
- National and regional
recognition of the protection
need of children on the move
is anchored in States and IOs
policies and practice.
- Laws, regulations, declarations, strategic
documents, documented practices and publications
reflecting Campaign partners recommendations
- All partners actively
contribute to the regional
campaign
- Political environment is
supportive
- Funding is available
14 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)
11
Intervention logic Indicators Means of verification Assumptions
Expected result 1:
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
- 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 community-
based 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 awareness-
raising and campaigning
actions
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
- 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
Expected result 3:
By the end of 2016, children on the
move access adequate and
interconnected services along 2
specific intra-regional movement
routes
- 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
- Project evaluations
- Partners’ capacity
assessment
- Political environment is
supportive
- Funding is available
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.
Draft version (21.07.2011)
12
► 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:
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
- 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
18 Including: business establishments, employers, recruitment agencies
Draft version (21.07.2011)
13
1.2. Interim result:
The active participation of the
target communities to the
establishment of child
protection systems is
facilitated by Campaign
partners
- Number of community-based child
protection groups in place and organized with
the support of partners
- Number of cases handled (e.g., migrant and
trafficked children, stateless children,
internally displaced children)
- Number of children representatives
(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
- Lists of groups
- Codes of conducts of groups
- Framework referral systems set up
- Communities/ general public
is receptive to the problems
faced by children on the move
- Public debate does not further
stigmatize migration and
migrants
Draft version (21.07.2011)
14
► 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
- 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
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
- 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
2.3 Interim result:
Migration status is
acknowledged by national
authorities and regional
organizations as an
illegitimate ground for
detaining children
- 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 In countries where campaign partners operate 20 Building on already existing initiatives (such as SCEP and UNHCR)
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)
15
► 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
3.1 Interim result:
By the end of 2016, two movements routes21 are
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.
- Studies are conducted on two
different routes
- ToR
- Research reports
- Funding is made
available
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.
- 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
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.
- 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
21 E.g., one route from Burma-Thailand-Malaysia/Singapore and another route within the GMS region.