Activities considered to constitute begging vary between countries and regions, and even between cities. For example, in Europe, while some countries ban begging outright (such as Denmark and Greece), others ban certain forms of begging, such as ‘aggressive’ or ‘fraudulent’ begging (Kosovo and Poland). In Poland, ‘aggressive begging’ refers to a begging person using insistent demands, threats or vulgarities to obtain donations, while ‘fraudulent begging’ refers to a situation where the begging person uses fraudulent means, such as pretending to be disabled or ill, using a disabled or sick child as a begging ‘prop’ or making public collections without a permit.17 However, research on child begging indicates that it may be more useful to examine child begging scenarios with reference to the specific violations of child rights that can be observed, in order to typify exploitation of begging and related abuses.18
Just as there is no single common method of begging among people trafficked for begging, there is no single common means of exploiting begging. Begging may be engaged in on a temporary basis or it may be a long-term activity. It may also take place in conjunction with other forms of exploitation, such as teenage girls forced to beg during the day and forced into commercial sexual exploitation in the evening. Those begging may do so from a fixed spot or they may be on the move. Begging can be door-to-door, though this is less common in trafficking cases, or at particular locations – typically markets, places of worship, traffic intersections, bus and train stations or shopping centres.19
In the absence of an accepted international definition of exploitation, let alone of the exploitation of begging, the latter is often categorised as ‘forced begging’ –a sub-category of forced labour. The crime then falls under the definition of forced labour in the 1930 ILO Forced Labour Convention. However, as many cases of exploitation may not involve a clearly identifiable element of coercion, it is considered more useful to use the term ‘exploitation through begging’ to cover all forms of exploitative begging, including forced begging. Exploitation through begging may then be considered a form of trafficking in human beings, if the other elements of adult or child trafficking are in evidence.20
Research has indicated that trafficking for exploitation through begging in general, and child trafficking for this purpose in particular, takes many forms. Indeed, in general, people become involved in begging for a number of reasons – mainly due to the interaction of various situations of vulnerability caused by poverty, exclusion and lack of alternatives for income generation.21
There are also specific situations in certain regions, such as parts of India and some countries in West Africa, where begging is a more widespread practice. In some cases, this has a religious aspect, and this feature has been abused in order to exploit or traffic those engaging in it. The significance of giving alms as one of the five pillars of Islam (Zakāt –spending a portion of one’s wealth for the benefit of the poor or needy) has been open to abuse, and exploited as a source of income for traffickers. In a religious-traditional system within the context of Quranic schools –‘daaras’ in Senegal, Gambia, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau; or ‘Al-Majiris’ in Northern Nigeria – begging may be considered to form part of a boy’s education. The boys are referred to as ‘talibés’ or ‘Al-Majiris’ and are taught by a spiritual guide: a ‘marabout’ or ‘mallam’. In some cases, this educational system does not involve exploitation; but in others, the masters engage in exploitation of their charges through begging. Where facilitation of the child’s movement takes place (such as reception, accommodation or transportation of the child) with the purpose of exploitation through begging, this can be considered trafficking. Within this system, boys from socio-economically excluded families receive an education in return for a certain amount of time spent begging as part of their daily routine. The widespread abuse of this education system has been documented in research and highlighted at the national and regional levels.22
Common characteristics of exploitation through begging
A major characteristic that distinguishes trafficking for exploitation through begging from other forms of trafficking is its visibility in the public space. Begging locations are commonly public areas such as train stations, main squares and markets and tourist sights, and trafficking for the purpose of exploitation through begging is no exception. In addition, begging is a complex phenomenon, comprising a range of activities and involving adults and children of all ages. Children’s pathways into begging, for instance, and the manner in which they engage in particular begging activities, often depend on their background, age and gender.
Age is a determining factor as to whether children begging are accompanied, monitored from a distance or acting alone or in groups. In European cities, while babies and toddlers are commonly to be found accompanied by a female adult or an older girl, older boys are more commonly engaged in service provision (such as windscreen washing) in small groups, without apparent accompaniment.23 Older children were identified as begging by themselves, or together with their extended families or peers, for extra income. Babies and toddlers, in some isolated cases, were borrowed and sold for passive involvement in begging activities.
Interviews with older children begging on the streets of European cities revealed patterns with regard to the motivations for their involvement in begging.24 While some children stated that they were begging for themselves, there were other situations with clear indications of exploitation. Across the range of child begging situations identified in 15 European countries, indications of different degrees of begging for survival, coercion, child exploitation and trafficking in children were found. Research also revealed that children trafficked for begging were exploited in multiple ways – including through pickpocketing, other petty crimes or sexual exploitation.25
In the EU, particular attention has been paid to the exploitation of children through begging as it relates to the crime of trafficking in human beings and the phenomenon of ‘organised begging’. In the UK and Romania, much publicity surrounded the activities of an EU-funded Joint Investigation Team (JIT), co-ordinated by the UK Metropolitan Police Service and involving the Romanian Police, code-named ‘Operation Golf’. This operation focused on a specific group of children, Romanians of Roma ethnicity, who had been registered as missing in Romania – some of whom were identified in London as being exploited through begging, pickpocketing, ATM theft and benefit fraud. The operation succeeded in obtaining prosecutions of some of the traffickers and criminals involved, through co-operation between Romanian and British authorities, but did not manage to ensure the protection of the majority of the children who had been trafficked and exploited – many of whom subsequently went missing from care services.26
In Denmark, a debate arose around the deportation of destitute adult EU citizens who had been found begging in the country – as begging is an administrative offence in Denmark. This culminated in a Supreme Court decision of 31 March 2011,27 which declared imprisonment for the purposes of carrying out these deportations – and the deportations themselves – illegal. The Supreme Court held that expulsion was in contravention of EU Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, “as the offence … was so random and had such limited adverse effect that A’s conduct could not be regarded as representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting fundamental interests of society”.28 The issue of whether or not these adult EU citizens were being exploited through begging in Denmark (or trafficked for that purpose) was not, however, considered by the authorities.
As emphasised by the former UN Special Rapporteur on Trafficking,29 it is essential to conduct research, and acquire more knowledge, in order to adapt State responses to the particular requirements and needs of children affected by trafficking for forced begging. Ezeilo states:
When there is evidence that the majority of children to be found begging have been trafficked or are being subjected to either f
orced labour or a practice similar to slavery, the relevant Government authority with appropriate child protection expertise should consider what response is appropriate, notably whether it should involve discouraging children of a certain age from begging, making it a criminal offence to profit from a child’s begging or discouraging the public from donating money to child beggars in some or all circumstances.30
Where adults are affected by trafficking for forced begging, a similarly tailored approach is needed.
Recognition and identification of trafficking for exploitation through begging
Some International Organisations, including UNODC and the ILO, have developed lists of indicators in order to support law enforcement, outreach services and other potential actors in effectively detecting cases of trafficking for various different forms of exploitation. Yet recognising the existence of forms of trafficking not explicitly set out in the UN Trafficking Protocol can be disputed and contentious. As begging is closely associated with poor and marginalised people, and often also populations who are discriminated against and stigmatised – such as Roma communities in Europe, lower ‘castes’ in India, and some indigenous communities in South America – it is necessary to define and describe the crime with the utmost clarity. Not all begging involves exploitation; and only a small minority of any of these stigmatised communities are ever involved in any form of begging – including the exploitation of begging.
It is worth mentioning that most children found begging in 30 European cities were children from Eastern European Roma communities,31 whose situation is aggravated by the high level of discrimination they face in both their countries of origin and countries of destination.32 For these reasons, among others, children involved in begging do not enjoy full access to their universal child rights. In some cases, exploitative begging does not constitute trafficking as such – particularly in relation to children. Due to the fact that vulnerability factors for this form of trafficking were found also in non-Roma trafficked populations, there is no evidence to support the notion that trafficking or exploitative begging are ‘cultural practices’ amongst European Roma.33
Research conducted from 2005–7 in Belgium concluded that, in Brussels at least, begging is not linked to trafficking, and people involved in begging activities did so merely as a survival strategy.34 These conclusions were echoed in studies in the Austrian city of Graz and the Swiss city of Lausanne.35 Subsequent research on the topic, conducted at a comparative level in multiple countries, found that, indeed, not all begging situations involve trafficking or exploitation. Yet indicators of trafficking, such as control of the begging activity by another person, restriction of movement or pressure to get involved in unlawful activities, have often been found in situations of begging observed on the ground.36
A further problem resides in how the law addresses child exploitation through begging (and child trafficking for the purpose of exploitation through begging) when the suspected perpetrator is a parent or legal guardian of the child. Family migration in order to beg, in particular, can lead to the exploitation of children by parents.37 This raises issues in terms of the parental custody of the child, as well as the need to determine how to act in the child’s best interests. The involvement of a parent or guardian as a suspected offender in such situations requires a delicate balancing of, on the one hand, the child’s right to family life and the care of their parents or guardians, with, on the other hand, their right to protection from exploitation. Child protection services and civil society have a crucial role to play in this process, as do family courts.38
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) provides for a child not to be separated from their parents against the child’s will unless it is determined to be in the child’s best interests (such as a case “involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents” (Article 9)), as well as for State assistance to parents in ensuring their children’s rights (Articles 18 and 27). The Convention further requires the protection of a child from “all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation … while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child” (Article 19(1)) –including by means of “support for the child and for those who have the care of the child” (Article 19(2)) –and calls for special protection and assistance for a “child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment” (Article 20). For example, the US Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report for 2010 expressed concern in relation to Kosovo that “there were insufficient care and rehabilitation options for child victims of trafficking who did not want to return to their families, members of which had often contributed to their initial trafficking”.39
The involvement of very young children in begging by their parents is considered to be a method of enhancing earning power, by inspiring empathy in passers-by. The European Commission’s study on child begging found that many begging people are parents who do not have access to appropriate childcare while they beg and therefore must take their babies or toddlers along with them. However, it is clear that, in other cases, the child is indeed simply used as a ‘begging prop’. It should also be taken into account that an adult who may appear to be the parent of the child could in fact be a third party posing as a parent to exploit the child and to elicit pity from passers-by.40
Children who are sent to beg by their parents, whether they hand over all of their earnings to a parent or guardian, or part, or even none of their earnings can, in certain circumstances, be regarded as involved in a ‘worst form of child labour’ (as defined by ILO Convention 182), or a form of child labour other than a ‘worst form’ (notably if, by requiring a child to beg, a child of compulsory school age is prevented from attending school). A number of the criteria of a ‘worst form of child labour’ could be regarded as pertinent to children who are exploited through begging – particularly young children or, in certain circumstances, girls – or to children who are forced to beg in a place where they are exposed to other dangers. Article 32 of the CRC stipulates the child’s right to be protected from economic exploitation and from “performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development”.
Exploitation through begging is set out in the Belgian Anti-Trafficking Law of 10 August 2005; but a proposal in 2012 sought to counter a prior decision by the Brussels Court of Appeal that a parent who uses their own child to beg does not commit a penal infraction.41 The proposal referred to the principle of non-discrimination of the fundamental rights of child victims of exploitation, regardless of whether they have a family relationship with the people allegedly responsible for the exploitation. The proposal also referred to the use of children by parents or other adults to evoke pity in passers-by. The proposal has since been dropped.42
The involvement of parents in child begging should be examined with caution, on a case-by-case basis, in order to draw a clear line between exploitation, on the one hand, and basic survival, or lack of effective access to social security, childcare and education, on the other. A report on child trafficking in Albania by Save the Children concluded that:
While informal migration processes that see children out of school and working in difficult conditions can never be promoted, perhaps caution needs to be taken before these families are labelled as exploiters.43
Delap44 suggested that particular care should be taken in responding to these cases, as criminalising the parents would have a detrimental effect on the child:
[T]he case for responding to forced child begging by parents through the criminal justice system is less clear. The widespread nature of forced child begging by parents revealed by this research suggests that such strategies would be hard to enforce in practice. Criminalising parents, especially if custodial sentences are imp
osed, may also have harmful ramifications if the child’s subsequent care and protection is not carefully planned and closely monitored. Such problems suggest that, in all but extreme cases of abuse, it may be wiser to develop holistic rehabilitation programmes for whole families which include helping parents to find alternative sources of income that do not involve exploiting children.
The European Commission’s study on children begging in 15 European countries found that children exploited for begging were often also exploited for other purposes: usually illegal activities such as petty crime (pickpocketing, stealing from parking meters, etc.), ATM theft, fraudulent child benefit claims, false charity collections and even prostitution.45 In these cases, exploiters may take advantage of a child being below the age of criminal responsibility and, therefore, not subject to arrest and prosecution for these activities. This context is particularly relevant for jurisdictions where begging itself is illegal, such as Lebanon, Jordan and Greece.
The need for legal provisions for the non-imposition of criminal liability on begging children who have been trafficked and subsequently forced into committing a criminal act was highlighted by the 2011 European Roma Rights Centre and People in Need publication Breaking the Silence: Trafficking in Romani Communities; and, in 2013, the OSCE Special Representative and Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings published recommendations on the implementation of the non-punishment provision with regard to victims of trafficking.46
Routledge Handbook of Human Trafficking Page 35
