The IOM official isn’t just calling for the women to be given “access to resources” though. She’s calling for them to be separated en masse from the male migrants and placed in “specialist centres” (read: fast-track repatriation units) simply on the basis that they are Nigerian women, and therefore presumed to be incapable of making the same rational decision to migrate as the men on the boats with them.
Real access to resources to prevent trafficking, of course, would require giving them visas to enter and work in Europe so they didn’t have to turn to traffickers in the first place; but that’s the exact opposite of the direction Europe is going in.
I am hesitant to admit this, because forced prostitution and child sex slavery is a serious problem, especially in the state where I work, but a recent increase in government funding to combat ‘‘human trafficking’’ has contributed in my state to what is known in the non-profit world as ‘‘mission drift’’ - that is, chasing after funds through the creation of new programs that either indirectly or barely support your intended mission. I’ve seen teen homeless shelters go for human trafficking funds, and while it’s certainly true that homeless teens are more vulnerable to being trafficked than others, it seems like an abuse of funding to me unless you have a mission or program specifically in place to address that specific issue. Meanwhile, there are organizations with missions specifically intended to address human trafficking that struggle for funding and support.
It’s a serious problem for those actually in it, or genuinely at risk of it, but the scale of the problem in the US is probably less than most people assume. The more rigorous (and less ideologically-driven) analyses, such as those recently done by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, tend to show that most juveniles in the sex trade are doing it to support themselves because of inadequate alternatives and not because there’s some pimp enslaving them and taking their earnings. The “child sex slave” narrative is so much more lucrative, though, that hyping it is in the interest of NGOs wanting a piece of that pie.
If the teen homeless shelters are actually providing suitable accommodation for the teenagers and not just four walls that are nearly as bad as the ones they became homeless to get away from - and enabling them to find something permanent - then by definition they’re addressing that specific issue. The number one need identified by underage people in the sex trade, in order to get out of it, is a safe and secure place to live.
If they’re just trying to “address human trafficking” without holistically addressing the needs of young people that lead them to turn to sex work to survive, they probably don’t deserve funding and support IMHO.