The Challenge of Addressing Both Forced Labor and Sexual Exploitation 18

Long-Lasting


Introduction
The field of study on trafficking in persons (TIP) has developed greatly since the adoption of the Palermo Protocol at the turn of the century. There has been a shift toward greater attention to forms of trafficking other than for sexual exploitation, notably for forced labor. However, the expansion of the anti-trafficking field faces new challenges and gaps in knowledge as well as in terms of practice.
One area that remains quite overlooked concerns the manifold challenges that arise when different forms of trafficking are addressed by one single entity (be it a coalition, a committee, or a civil society organization). Internationally, TIP is usually defined officially as involving a range of exploitative scenarios: forced labor, commercial and other forms of sexual exploitation, and the removal and sale of organs are all commonly included. (This non-exhaustive list follows the definition of TIP as established by the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (adopted in 2000).) Each of these phenomena, while having some commonalities, also has many different characteristics. When the state or civil society try to respond to "human trafficking," it can be difficult to find an approach that works across each of these scenarios.
There has been abundant research on the difficulties encountered in providing assistance to persons who have been trafficked, but it has mainly concerned intervention in the context of TIP for sexual exploitation, including shelters and programs supporting exiting the sex industry. Critics sometimes frame this approach as the "rescue industry" (Agustín 2007).
Further, the importance of adopting a collaborative and multi-sectoral approach in anti-trafficking efforts has been widely acknowledged and called for by scholars and practitioners alike. However, there is little critical, in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the implications and challenges that arise from multidisciplinary actions. Some of these challenges emerge precisely from the difficulties of trying to use one approach to respond to different forms of trafficking. A single entity bringing together the issues of TIP for forced labor and sexual exploitation is likely to face challenges, for example. To begin with, attention and actions targeting trafficking for labor trafficking are relatively recent. Hence, if compared with the issue of sex traffickingthat has garnered most of the TIP attention so faraddressing labor trafficking entails specific challenges and requires the involvement of new actors (e.g., labor inspectors, trade unions).
This chapter will discuss the strengths and weaknesses and the advantages and disadvantages of endeavoring to serve differing populations of people affected by TIP for sexual exploitation versus TIP for forced labor. (In this chapter, the terms TIP for forced labor and TIP for sexual exploitation will be used interchangeably with labor trafficking and sex trafficking.) We will do so by analyzing responses to TIP that are inter-sectoral, coordinated, and concerted; this approach, usually in the form of coalitions or committees, is commonly used as a means to tackle trafficking in all its forms.
The chapter will draw on the findings of a pan-Canadian study (funded by the Department of Justice of Canada), highlighting the experiences of frontline workers. The study is based on interviews with 79 stakeholders and practitioners from different sectors (community, law enforcement, social services, and health sectors), which were conducted in diverse Canadian cities. One of the objectives of the research was to document and examine experiences of inter-sectoral collaboration in the field of trafficking in Canada.
The chapter will first briefly review definitional debates around trafficking and highlight some key points that inform discussions on the struggles of frontline work in the field of human trafficking. Second, the paper discusses the challenges that arise from tackling specific forms of trafficking within collaborative initiatives, before presenting some promising practices for doing so.

Practical Insights on the Long-Lasting Definitional Debates Around Trafficking
Ever since TIP emerged as a public concern, there have been pervasive definitional debates.
A significant part of the definitional discussions concern the role of "representations" of the phenomenon and their impacts on the way trafficking is perceived and conceptualized in policy and practice (Andrijasevic 2010;Kempadoo et al. 2012;Andrijasevic and Mai 2016). Since the early stages of the study of TIP, a critical antitrafficking scholarship has developed, precisely outlining and discussing the contentions around the definition of TIP and attempting to paint a more nuanced picture (Doezema 2010;Kempadoo et al. 2012;O'Connell Davidson and Anderson 2006;Andrijasevic 2010).
Beyond the legal definition of TIP, the way TIP is understood and perceived is influenced by the way it is represented in mainstream narratives (media, policy statements, NGO anti-trafficking campaigns, etc.). Not only is TIP often equated with sex trafficking, there is a powerful imagery about who is the archetypical victim, mainly imagined to be young women and girls, vulnerable and naïve, and readily falling prey to trafficking. As argued by Kempadoo et al. (2012) and Sanghera (2005), among others, victims of trafficking are embodied by the image of (migrant) women, powerless, helpless and passive, poor migrants from thirdworld countries, and in need to be rescued by organizations and people from "developed countries" (Kempadoo et al. 2012). Hence, there is also a strong racial component.
Critical studies on trafficking have also highlighted that the common conflation of human trafficking with "sex trafficking" has led to overlook other types of trafficking, particularly trafficking for forced labor. This has been true in terms of research and both public and political attention to the problem. But also, consequently, this conflation of trafficking with sex trafficking has translated into less developed responses in the field of trafficking for forced labor.
Early anti-trafficking understandings strongly associated trafficking with organized crime and hence maintained the idea that TIP occurs outside of the mainstream economy, social values, norms, as well as policies. In other words, trafficking was confined to the underground, the criminal, and the "extraordinary," and not easily related to labor market structures and labor migration laws (Rijken 2011). In addition, it is the more extreme cases of TIP that generate the most attention and, consequently, the most efforts to protect.
In the same vein, there has been a growing shift toward the use of the term "slavery," to the extent that slavery, trafficking, and forced labor are sometimes used interchangeably. Some scholars argue that the current discourse on trafficking, portrayed and conceived as a new form of slavery, depoliticizes the wider debate on migration and labor (Andrijasevic 2010), diverting attention from the structural causes of inequalities (e.g. the way the labor market and migrant labor are regulated). As argued by McGrath and Strauss (2015), focusing on extreme cases (that often fall within more specific/individual situations) precludes addressing structural causes and thus leaves aside, without questioning, the overall labor framework and the pitfalls of the labor and migration systems.
Cases of extreme violence and suffering are used as stereotypical examples and illustrations of trafficking. However, such sensational representations of TIP leave more complex issues of human rights violations and labor exploitation in the shadows. TIP does not always involve physical violence, physical confinement, and situations of being "enslaved." Some forms of exploitation that do not fall within trafficking or forced labor definitions may be perceived as being residual and even tend to be normalized (Anderson 2007), thus creating a "hierarchy of suffering" (Skrivankova 2010: 18).
The blurred or confused definitions and frames have multifold implications, not only in terms of how we conceptualize and understand the issue but also in terms of how responses (political, legal, institutional) are developed. Definitional ambiguities and lack of clarity may "result in either non-recognition or sensational and victimizing labeling" (Piper et al. 2015). In regard to labor trafficking, it has resulted in low visibility and little consideration and, in turn, the under-identification of cases.
Growing concern regarding labor exploitation has the potential to challenge those perceptions. Situations of labor exploitation may occur in the domestic sector or family-owned businesses (restaurant, hotel), for example, far from organized crime networks. It may relate to international corporations' responsibility and accountability regarding working conditions in different countries. However, as we will further discuss, (mis)conceptions about trafficking still today impact the identification of situations of trafficking and of the criminal exploitation of migrants.
Further, despite advances in definitional discussionsnotably in bringing to the forefront the issue of labor traffickingdebates have offered little in terms of practical insights. Namely, what does it mean in practice to deal with different forms of trafficking? Should a global approach to traffickingencompassing both situations of TIP for sexual exploitation and TIP for forced laborbe developed and maintained? Or, to avoid diluting efforts, does it make more sense that each sector mobilizes the actors and expertise it needs? This is one of the many challenges in service provision that has been overlooked.
Addressing Different Types of Trafficking: Need for More Divergence or Convergence?
The physical, psychological, and socioeconomic recovery of each person who has experienced trafficking require a broad range of resources; no single organization can respond alone to their needs. This explains the importance given to coordination and concertation among organizations from different sectors in the anti-trafficking field. Inter-sectoral and collaborative approaches ensure that the person may access a wide spectrum of services, on the one hand, and, on the other, that knowledgeable actors may help better inform other stakeholders. Further, collaboration may also be a way to combine efforts addressing different forms of trafficking.
The call for better collaboration is not recent. The need to improve coordination and collaboration in service provisionnot only between groups in the community sector but also with social service providers, public health, and law enforcementis commonly acknowledged in scholarly literature, policy documents, and international organizations' reports. Important gains have been made in this direction worldwide, nationally, and also locally.
However, a distinction has to be made with regard to the type of work or actions being implemented by collaborative anti-trafficking entities. When coalitions/ groups/networks focus their actions on awareness-raising and prevention activities, they may not be confronted with the difficulties or limitations related to the fact that they cover different forms of trafficking. On the contrary, outlining the multiple realities that the umbrella term "trafficking" encompasses may well suit the mandate of awareness-raising on trafficking. But if anti-trafficking coalitions/groups/networks start to step into service provision and assistance to victims, they may then be confronted with important challenges.
Let us now turn to the practical challengesbut also opportunitiesof addressing different types of trafficking under a single umbrella-organization, committee, or coalition.

Labor Trafficking: Still Under-detected? Or Rather Called by Another Name?
Labor trafficking is still often off the radar of law enforcement. Why are fewer cases of labor trafficking identified? Issues related to definition and understanding have already been raised. In practical terms, this means, for example, in the case of law enforcement, that there is less awareness about the occurrence of the phenomenon, and hence actors are less familiar with the issue: I mean, a lot of times cops are not very comfortable with the non-traditional form of trafficking which we advocate for. Meaning labor or meaning forced marriages. (Interview 12, Legal Assistance) As a result, labor trafficking is still a neglected aspect of police intervention and is rarely the object of proactive investigations (Maroukis 2016). There are more resources available and more attention given to TIP for sexual exploitation, and often law enforcement can draw upon already existing experience and knowledge working in the ambit of the sex trade. In some cases, dedicated teams within the police force, focusing on TIP for sexual exploitation, might exist.
Another difficulty in detecting cases of labor trafficking is that the initial arrangement is usually voluntary. The person has consented to migrate (if migration is involved) and to engage in a labor arrangement. Coercive recruitment in situations of labor trafficking is not common. However, this is not to say that coercive recruitment is a common feature of sex trafficking. Further, as it has been documented through case law analysis (Beatson et al. 2017;EC 2015), indirect forms of coercion (such as withholding of wages and threat of penalty) as opposed to direct forms of coercion (e.g., threat to safety, violence) are less accepted in court as a form of coercion and, as a consequence, as an indicator of trafficking.
Within the law enforcement realm, the literature on trafficking has already documented the challenges encountered in trafficking investigation work. Awareness of trafficking for labor exploitation is new and still little understood. Investigations are more complex (Sikka 2013). It often involves an intricate combination of violations of labor standards, immigration policies, and criminal charges that can be both under immigration law and the criminal code (Sikka 2013;Dandurand and Chin 2014) and thus requires a combination of different expertise. Further, cases of labor trafficking mostly involve migrants, who often become undocumented through the process of exploitation. There might be breaches or misuses of legal temporary migration programs, as is the most common scenario in Canada, for example (Beatson et al. 2017). Migrants with a precarious migration status are much more reluctant to disclose and come forward to the police and authorities.
Challenges in the identification of labor trafficking cases go far beyond law enforcement. It is shared among different sectors. Despite the existence of legal definitions of trafficking, there is an ambiguity regarding "clear" parameters for a situation of exploitation to correspond to trafficking. For example, some situations may involve offences under civil or labor law (unpaid salary, breach of contract, nonrespect of labor standards); others involve more severe forms which then fall under the scope of criminal law (e.g., use of physical violence or threat to one's safety, confiscation of identity documents).
Further, it is important to include in the discussion not only the challenges of identification but also the reluctance of both practitioners and persons in exploitative situations to use the "trafficking frame" as the avenue for intervention. The focus on the problem of "under-detection" as being primarily linked to a lack of knowledge presupposes that detecting trafficking situations constitutes the starting point of intervention for protection, that identifying situations as "trafficking" is what everyone wants and thinks is best. However, this is not the case.
Practitioners may well opt not to use the trafficking lens and it may be a deliberate choice. The fact that victims do not see themselves as trafficking victims and may even refuse assistance designed under the trafficking frame has been documented (Brunovskis and Surtees 2012). However, frontline workers can also be reluctant to name certain situations as trafficking, not because of a lack of awareness but because they do not always see an added value to it. This element has been less discussed. In a right-based approach, and empowerment perspective, the core of the intervention is the well-being, the interest, and the protection of the person. For example, when the person is undocumented, collaboration with law enforcement represents a concrete risk of being criminalized and deported, rather than having their rights protected. Once law enforcement is aware of their status, the person is vulnerable to detention and deportation. Yet being identified a victim of trafficking by law enforcement and immigration authorities may be one of the few, if not the only, way for undocumented migrants to get substantial assistance (as well as a temporary stay permit in the country).
This dilemma is important as practitioners' evaluation will determine the avenue of intervention: the legal and criminal route versus the labor violations and access to remedies route (or both). Access to justice (more generally) and to compensation (more specifically) are avenues advocated as key components of programs of assistance and services for persons affected by trafficking (Comp.Act 2012). Compensation may include claiming for unpaid wages or remedy for damages as a result of the exploitation (p. 3).
Finally, there is also an important political dimension to the identification of, or even the framing as, labor trafficking: One of the reasons why so few people have been designated as trafficked and provided with assistance is the lack of political will to tackle the widespread exploitation that undergirds industries like agriculture and domestic work. There are many stakeholders that benefit from normalising migrant exploitation; sometimes entire industries rely on low-wages. (. . .) Acknowledging trafficking makes visible capitalism run amuck and the link between migrants' legal status and exploitation. (Brennan and Plamblech 2018: 2) Including Labor Trafficking Means Working with "New" Actors Another axis of difficulty is related to the fact that working with different types of trafficking implies working with very diverse collaborators and partners. Antitrafficking coalitions, networks, and alliances have, for the most part, initiated their work with a focus on TIP for sexual exploitation. In other words, many antitrafficking organizations were created with a mandate that was often limited to sex trafficking. As more attention was dedicated to issues of TIP for forced labor, new actors who were not (or to a lesser extent) solicited in early anti-trafficking efforts were brought together, such as trade unions, labor standard agencies, workplace inspectors, etc. Working across different sectors of interventionat times with very different mandates and missionsrepresents a significant challenge regardless of the type of trafficking and even if only addressing one form of TIP. But this reality is amplified in contexts of combined response to multiple forms of trafficking. In addition, for many of the labor-related organizations or migration-related organizations, dealing with trafficking constitutes only a fraction of their work. Trafficking is often not an explicit part of their mandate, or, when included, it constitutes a minor issue rather than a priority. This also brings an additional layer of complexity when it comes to collaboration.
The way trafficking is understood by actors from different sectors is shaped and informed by very different approaches to intervention. Divergent definitions of trafficking (from narrow and restrictive to broader views of the continuum of exploitation and the importance of tackling structural inequalities) are common, and these divergent definitions often oppose state actors (typically working with the legal definition of trafficking) with nongovernmental actions (who are more likely to have a broader human rights and structural view of the issue). Further, specific organizational mandates will, of course, determine the parameters and orientation of interventions, which can also create further division or tensions. For example, organizations whose mandates focus on immigration or labor issues will have a different approach to organizations whose mandates have a feminist lens and focus on women's issues such as domestic violence and sexual exploitation.
As an illustration of this point, it may be legitimate to raise such questions as: "Is it possible, for example, for labor-focused advocacy, which may call for unionization to protect workers, to sit alongside advocacy that problematizes the label 'sex work' as a failure to recognize that this work is inherently gendered and exploitative" (Piper et al. 2015: 1). In other words, is it feasible to reconcile such divergent mandates and if so, how?
Then, perhaps less evidently, the divergence of mandates and missions is not limited to the type of trafficking. Even within the ambit of TIP for forced labor, there are important labor and sector-specific dimensions and needs to take into consideration. Cases of labor trafficking may occur in very diverse settings: in a private household, supply chains, fishing industries, construction, agriculture, etc. It may occur through a process of recruitment based on informal individual and social networks, or recruitment may occur through the use of intermediaries and employment agencies (including fraudulent ones). Gaining knowledge and awareness of such diverse settings is not an easy task. It requires very different actors or even sectors and may require different actions and interventions.
The importance of the role of labor inspectors has been pushed to the forefront and called for by advocates and researchers alike (Piper et al. 2015;Robinson 2015;ILO 2016). Not least among them, the ILO Forced Labor Protocol 2014 has emphasized the crucial role of labor inspections and the need to reinforce them. The inclusion of labor inspections in anti-trafficking actions, or inversely the inclusion of trafficking within labor inspectorates' mandates, is uneven across countries. Labor inspectorates commonly have the power to monitor and investigate (or document) labor rights violations, but not offences of a criminal nature. Advocates of people facing labor exploitation and TIP for forced labor also often call for a division of labor and immigration investigations in order to protect victims with irregular immigration status from detention and deportation. A further inclusion of trafficking within the ambit of their action may require changes in labor inspectors' mandates or entail a closer collaboration with criminal law actors and immigration advocates.
As for trade unions, engaging in anti-trafficking actions raises specific challenges (Marks and Olsen 2015). Some sectors where exploitative practices and trafficking occurwhich are characterized by isolation, informality, and difficult outreachmay render collective actions more difficult (Hanley et al. 2012). Some sectors also mostly involve temporary migrant workers. As a consequence, there might be a need to rethink ways to protect workers' rights and making new and international alliances.

Between National and International Cases of Trafficking
Another line of difficulty that may arise concerns the differentiation between situations involving nationals (residents or citizens) versus when it involves international migrants, in other words between international and national cases of trafficking. The importance and attention given to domestic trafficking, which does not involve the crossing of a border, varies according to national contexts and specificities. Although in some countries, TIP for sexual exploitation may have an important "national" or domestic componentmeaning it affects large numbers of citizens and permanent residentslabor trafficking, in contrast, is often exclusively associated with situations involving international migrants.
For example, the Canadian anti-trafficking policy is characterized by its strong focus on TIP for sexual exploitation and particularly on the occurrence of this phenomenon within the country, without necessarily involving international border crossing for victims or perpetrators. This trend has also been observed in the United States and northern European countries (Choi-Fitzpatrick 2016). Linking trafficking with young people, especially girls, in the sex trade in Canada has been a trigger to mobilize political and NGO efforts. For strategic reasons, indigenous women's organizations in Canada have also linked the concept of trafficking to the disappearance and murder of women and girls from their communities (Kaye 2017). The linking of sex trafficking to domestic victims has served to give visibility to an issue that was previously not attracting such public sympathy and concern (a problematic situation in itself). However, this association has also had the negative effect of channeling most government and private foundation funding to combatting this form of trafficking (De Shalit et al. 2014), neglecting the challenge of labor trafficking.
This context has also led to the mobilization of actors involved with youth in the sex trade and shelters for (non-migrant) women within key coalitions or concerted initiatives. As a consequence, knowledgeable actors regarding the realities of migrants and immigration laws and policies are often absent or very few around the table of anti-trafficking coalitions, alliances, and networks, a significant gap (Ricard-Guay and Hanley 2015). Regularization of migratory status is one of the primary needs of international victims. Knowledge about the different migration statuses and their related rights is essential and will affect the types of response and protection that are provided. The decision about what to do about immigration statusin the Canadian context, whether to pursue a temporary resident permit for victims of trafficking in persons (TRP-TIP), to make a refugee claim, and to apply for permanent residency through a humanitarian and compassionate claimrequires specialized knowledge and skills. The sensitive (often problematic) nature of the collaboration with law enforcement, while being common to various forms of trafficking, either national or international, becomes at times insurmountable when it comes to undocumented migrants.

The Delicate Collaboration with Law Enforcement for Undocumented Migrants
The definition of traffickingas internationally agreedbuilds on the definition of a crime. Hence, ultimately, the formal recognition of a situation of trafficking resides with law enforcement authorities, and then the judiciary, if a legal proceeding is initiated. Hence, access to public programs of assistance for victims of trafficking (including temporary residence permits, legal and psychosocial assistance, immediate and longer-term shelter, and other social rights (health, counseling)) is tributary to the binary decision: is it or is it not a situation of trafficking? Collaboration with law enforcement is, in most (if not all) cases, sensitive, given many victims' reluctance to disclose to authorities their involvement inmore often than notundeclared or even illegal activities. In situations involving undocumented migrants, it becomes even more of a dilemma.
As we know, if a migrant is not formally identified as a trafficking victim, those without proper stay (or residence) permits risk being deported. To access the temporary visas for trafficking victims that exist in many countries, such as in the European Union, in Canada, and in the United States, migrants have to be officially identified as victims of trafficking. In addition, and more problematically, the collaboration of the victim in legal proceeding against the traffickers is often a requirement to access the assistance and protection measures. In Canada and in Italy, even if the law does not require formal criminal charges against the trafficker to be laid in order for a person to be officially identified as a trafficking victim, in practice, not having an open investigation greatly impedes access to the temporary visa. Hence, it renders collaboration with law enforcement necessary in order to ensure status.
The challenges in collaborating with law enforcement is a shared reality regardless of the type of trafficking, but for the reasons discussed above, these challenges are greater for undocumented migrants affected by TIP for forced labor outside of the sex industry. Further, in the case of labor trafficking, labor inspectorates become part of law enforcement, as they may become involved in denouncing undocumented migrants. Yet, even in situations in which a decision is made not to disclose a trafficking situation to law enforcement authorities, the risk of deportation remains and legal support and advice is still an important dimension of intervention.

Beyond the Criminal Law Framework: Access to Remedies and Justice for Migrant Workers Facing Exploitation
As compared with sex trafficking, which in most countries is not dealt with as a labor issue, dealing with labor trafficking requires broadening the scope of anti-trafficking knowledge to include tools and advocacy toward fair, just, and decent work conditions for all, which includes a strong focus on undocumented migrants' rights. As well, when dealing with labor trafficking (or labor exploitation taken more broadly), alternative forms of access to remedies not commonly thought of as related to trafficking (e.g., through an employment tribunal) become possible for workers whose labor rights are being violated.
However, employment and labor law remedies (e.g., reclaiming unpaid salaries) are not widely used in all jurisdictions. These remedies are often inaccessible for migrant workers or seen as largely ineffective; the procedures are long and migrants may have to return to their country before a settlement is achieved (Ricard-Guay 2016). The situation for undocumented migrants is even more precarious. Even if, in some countries (e.g., in most of EU Member States, FRA 2015), undocumented migrants are entitled to claim remedies, in practice it is very difficult if not impossible to do so. For example, at the European level, the Employer Sanctions Directive (Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals), adopted in 2009 and transposed in national legislations (except the UK) in subsequent years, aims to tackle the irregular employment of non-nationals. Some of the provisions seek to ensure the protection of labor rights of undocumented migrants. On the one hand, just the fact of recognizing the rights of workers regardless of their migration status is already an achievement. However, the primary goal of this directive is to criminalize the employers' decision to hire undocumented migrants (Rolland and Soova 2015), something that will, on the other hand, make it difficult for workers to decide to make a complaint. In addition, it is centered on wage compensation and does not address all of the other rights of migrant workers.

The Gender Bias
When it comes to setting priorities, resources are still predominantly allocated to efforts to tackle TIP for sexual exploitation and in particular to women and girls. This is another challenge that coalitions and anti-trafficking organizations must confront when responding concomitantly to TIP for forced labor and sexual exploitation. This gender bias is an important one to consider when coalitions or networks try to address sex and labor trafficking together. The stereotypical image of the ideal victim, discussed earlier, is persistent and still present today. As stated by Andrijasevic and Mai (2016), despite decades of research and activism, the image is still that of a young migrant woman tricked into prostitution and held physically confined against her will (p.4). Men are less easily seen as a victim of trafficking.
Gender biases do not only have an impact on giving more or less attention to certain dimensions of traffickingwomen and girls being associated with TIP for sexual exploitation and men with TIP for forced laborbut it also results in lower investment in resources for men. We know little about the needs and experiences of men in the aftermath of trafficking, a field of knowledge that would be essential to the development of interventions tailored to their needs (Surtees 2018).
In a study conducted in Canada, results from the interviews with practitioners across the country showed that one key challenge for actors working in antitrafficking organizations, coalitions, or networks was the absence or scarcity of existing resources to provide support to men victims of trafficking. Notably, with regard to shelters and specialized psychosocial support, resources were very often exclusively available for women. Those working with men victims had to turn to volunteer and activist support (Ricard-Guay and Hanley 2015).
Too often, anti-trafficking assistance and protection are focused on and limited to the rescue and rehabilitation of women and girls after TIP for sexual exploitation. Shelters for women and girls "rescued" from sex trafficking have been opened by civil society, international organizations, and faith-based groups in numerous countries to support their recovery and rehabilitation. Yet, this "rescue industry," which channels funding streams, can have detrimental effects, either by involuntarily sending women and girls back to their countries of origin (through the so-called voluntary return programs) or by sending them to shelters with restrictive rules without responding to their particular needs and aspirations. (On this topic, see GAATW 2007 andPlambech (2014).) Combined Efforts to Tackle Multiple Forms of Trafficking: What Are the Advantages, Then?
Despite all of the challenges discussed so far regarding what we can frame as "combined anti-trafficking efforts," one could argue that addressing both types of trafficking together has had the positive effect of drawing more attention to labor trafficking. By including labor trafficking as an axis of intervention, thereby integrating new actors, the anti-trafficking coalitions/networks or organizations have managed to raise awareness about the issue. Further, by bringing together practitioners and organizations that were not traditionally working closely together, new opportunities for dialogue may have opened. Most importantly, including divergent forms of human trafficking may have helped frontline workers to open their horizon of understanding how people who have experienced trafficking see their situation and what they want for their futures.
The shift toward greater attention and interest for labor trafficking has also involved a shift toward a labor rights approach. This means that questions related to policies and lawsboth in the fields of labor and, in particular, labor migrationhave entered the discussion on trafficking. In terms of actions, it entails pursuing advocacy work toward greater protection of migrant workers' rights. In that perspective, in engaging with labor trafficking issues, it becomes necessary to address more structural factors conducive to trafficking and obliges a questioning of the socioeconomic and political dimensions at the root of exploitative practices. Trafficking in the sex industry is compounded by its links to criminalization and links to criminal networks in all countries where sex work is illegal (partially or completely). The political debate that seeks to address the prevention of exploitation in the sex industry too often remains limited to the discussion about the pros and cons of decriminalizing the sex industry. In the case of trafficking for forced labor, the discussion goes beyond the criminal lens and touches the types of policies in place that may produce, reproduce, or reinforce inequalities or vulnerabilities conducive to different forms of exploitation. Indeed, a labor rights approach to trafficking builds on a premise that multiple factors will play a role in setting conditions conducive to trafficking, including the legal, political, and socioeconomic contexts, thus including immigration, labor and employment, and criminal laws (Shamir 2012). That being said, a labor and migrant rights approach has also been at the core of sex workers' advocacy, activism, and scholarship.
The anti-trafficking framework, as developed so far, has mainly focused on "rescue" types of intervention. Bringing a labor protection component into the anti-trafficking framework requires addressing employment regulations and labor laws. It bears the potential of developing more and new tools to address exploitation of workers and to prevent it.
At the international level, the adoption of the ILO Forced Labour Convention, along with the Recommendations on Supplementary Measures for the Effective Suppression of Forced Labor (No. 203), has strengthened a labor approach to trafficking, integrating the consideration of labor rights within the anti-trafficking framework. It includes recommendations to strengthen labor inspections, tackle fraudulent recruitment practices, and expand labor law and labor rights to all workers, regardless of their immigration or employment status. One gap that remains to be addressed is the liability and responsibility of corporate actors for trafficking that occurs along supply chains.

Conclusion
In this chapter, we have explored how definitional discussions on trafficking have been linked to the types of interventions that are offered or available to people seeking to exit a situation of trafficking. While in many regards, persons who have been victims of trafficking will have similar needs in terms of protection (e.g., immediate and longer-term shelter, regularization of their migration status, legal assistance, alternate economic opportunities), different types of trafficking will raise different issues.
Questions about defining trafficking raise the more fundamental issue of whether the very concept of trafficking is useful to interventions. Isn't trafficking just one extreme of a broad continuum of exploitation? Do the attention and resources focused on trafficking overshadow the plight of people who are exploited in other ways, more numerous and just as deserving of support and compassion? Is the "antitrafficking" movement creating a category of "deserving victims" whose needs count for more, and who have a greater right to receive help, while abandoning those who don't happen to fit the definition (Hanley et al. 2006)? As we have already discussed, many frontline workers do not think it is essential to their work to name their client's situation as trafficking; this would make absolutely no difference to the way they intervene. However, some frontline workers may also believe, rightly or wrongly, that in specific contexts trafficking raises greater indignation and has become a priority, and that the interest in trafficking has created a greater recognition that all forms of exploitation are unacceptable.
As it has been discussed in the chapter, the shift toward greater attention for labor trafficking, and the shift toward a labor approach to trafficking, requires an expansion of the fields of expertise and sectors involved. It may be challenging to do so, but at the same time it bears the potential of developing new tools and new avenues of protection, beyond the narrow criminal lens. Combining the efforts of actors more traditionally connected to TIP for sexual exploitation with actors more traditionally connected to TIP for forced labor may help broaden our understanding of trafficking and better inform us (practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders) about both how to prevent TIP and also how best to provide support, assistance, access to remedies, and protection that respond to the needs of the persons directly involved.