tdhif campaign on children on the move in the southeast asia region

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


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)


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


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.


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


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


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?


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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?


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.

tdhif campaign on children on the move in the southeast asia region

Documents

burmese children

various children

numbers of children

street children

term children

phenomenon of children

concept of children

study of children