ECPAT Workshop

It was such a pleasure to attend ECPAT UK’s workshop on how definitions impact the response to child trafficking on 24 April. The room was filled with incredible people — including those with lived experience, dedicated solicitors fighting daily for young people (especially young girls affected by exploitation and modern slavery), charity workers offering trauma-informed support, and professionals from the Home Office and National Referral Mechanism (NRM) panels.

ECPAT set the scene by sharing valuable insights from their research, which helped ground the discussions that followed. We explored case studies and engaged in powerful conversations, and the passion in the room was truly inspiring. It was clear that everyone present deeply cared about creating meaningful change for children affected by trafficking.

However, the case studies also highlighted a significant issue: the difficulty in implementing the NRM during the early stages of exploitation. This often leaves young people vulnerable to further harm during those critical initial periods of grooming and abuse. It was a stark reminder of how much more needs to be done to protect and support children at risk — especially young women and girls, who are often targeted early and hidden in plain sight.

It was also clear from the discussions that confusion around definitions is still causing real harm. One key point that stood out is that movement isn’t needed for something to meet the definition of child trafficking. The legal definition — from the Palermo Protocol — includes things like recruitment, harbouring, or receipt, not just transportation or transfer. But in practice, many services still focus heavily on physical movement, which means some children’s experiences are being missed or misunderstood.

This is particularly dangerous for young women and girls, whose exploitation may take place within local communities, homes, or even care settings — without ever crossing a border or even moving from one town to another. If movement is wrongly assumed to be a required element, their experiences may not be recognised as trafficking at all.

This also links to the difference between how child and adult trafficking are defined. For adults, there needs to be evidence of coercion, force, or deception. But for children, that extra step isn’t needed — because a child can’t consent to their own exploitation, even if they agree to travel or seem to understand what’s happening. That’s a crucial point that’s often overlooked, and one that disproportionately affects girls, whose exploitation is too often minimised, disbelieved, or misclassified.

These definitions matter. When professionals don’t understand them clearly, it can lead to children not being identified as victims or not getting the support they need. And when gendered patterns of harm go unrecognised, it’s young girls who are most likely to fall through the cracks. It’s another reason why better training and consistent understanding are so important in this space.

The workshop was a powerful reminder that change is possible — but only if we stay focused on the details that matter. Definitions aren’t just technicalities; they shape how we respond, who gets seen, and who gets left behind. Let’s keep pushing for greater awareness, stronger systems, and a child-centred — and gender-aware — approach in everything we do.

By: Charlie Cross, Abianda Senior Lived Experience Consultant