Commission

son to whom they had made the approach then connected the victim with anti-trafficking services
and they subsequently entered into the identification and support system.
CASE STUDY, Netherlands, FairWork ‘Cultural Mediation’:
Cultural mediators are volunteers for FairWork. Their role involves actively searching for migrants from
their own national or cultural community who they consider could be a victim of labour exploitation.
To facilitate this work they actively build and maintain a relevant network of contacts within migrant
communities, through employment agencies, embassies or cultural groups. Their strength is to act as a
bridge between workers and support agencies. They share relevant information about labour rights in the
Netherlands.
Cultural mediators are expected to be educated in social support or legal advice, have experience of
working with the relevant migrant community, know Dutch language and culture well, and similarly know
the culture and language of the relevant nationality well. They receive professional training throughout
their work and are guided by FairWork staff.
CASE STUDY, Netherlands, engagement of migrant community member:
“I ran away when my boss was out for a moment. I addressed a Chinese man in the street, told him my story
and asked for help. He bought me a train ticket to Amsterdam. There again I looked for a Chinese person. I
found a Chinese restaurant, and the owner was kind. She gave me food and shelter.”
The Romanian research showed a slightly different picture. Trafficked persons talked of the importance
of family ties and of engagement with their embassies or consulates overseas. Many of those
interviewed talked of actively ‘strategizing’ about how to get in touch with their embassy when they
had been in a situation of exploitation. Family members were also able to ensure that victims were
detected if in situations of exploitation overseas.
CASE STUDY, Romania, engagement of family members in detection:
72 Romanians were exploited in Spain in the agricultural sector. They were held in very poor conditions
and forced to work. They were recruited by a network of Romanian nationals, through job
advertisements posted in the local media, which promised well-paid jobs in Spain for seasonal work.
A cross-border police operation was mounted to assist the 72 victims once a family member of one of
the victims notified the Romanian police.
Establishment and review of formal identification systems
The OSCE regards the process of locating and identifying potential victims as the ‘core of every
NRM’ (OSCE, 2004, 16). The UK National Referral Mechanism (NRM) was established as UK government
policy in 2009 as part of the UK’s implementation of the Council of Europe Convention.
Between its inception in 2009 and September 2014 approximately 6,800 people were referred into
the NRM (Home Office, 2014). In 2014, a National Referral Mechanism Review was commissioned
by the Home Secretary to examine and make recommendations on six key areas: identification of
victims, access to support, levels of support, decision making on trafficking claims, governance of
the NRM, collection and sharing of data (ibid.). Written evidence was submitted from a wide variety
of actors including the police, local authorities, NGOs, Parliamentarians, campaigners and victims
through shelter visits. As a result of the Review’s findings and recommendations, a new multi-agency
referral and decision-making process is currently being piloted in two regions of the UK.
In the Netherlands a National Referral Mechanism is now being finalised. The new structure enables
referral both by frontline responders and the general public. Access to the NRM is currently tied to
‘judicial victimhood’. This means that an assessment by police will allow access to a 90-day reflection
and recovery period. Access to continued support thereafter is generally conditional on coopera-
13