SEXUAL ABUSE AND EXPLOITATION OF BOYS IN SOUTH ASIA A ...

strengthen family and community protection of children. A key source of information for
policy development, children’s views and experiences, was not tapped during the
development of many of the policies in South Asia. Those policies developed with children’s
participation more fully address key issues such as the immediate causes of vulnerability and
the participation of families and communities in the recovery and reintegration of exploited
children.
In South Asia, most countries’ policies, particularly those on trafficking, lack precise
objectives, inadequately define their target groups and often do not encompass the full
spectrum of issues requiring attention to protect children from abuse and exploitation. As
noted above, policies that focus on trafficking often ignore the broader scope of sexual
exploitation, not considering the experiences of boys.. Nor do they fully address the factors
that contribute to children entering potentially exploitative situations, such as through
migration, street living or as a result of family problems. Some policies, such as India’s, are
primarily focused on girls and women, excluding areas of concern to boys. Others, such as
Pakistan’s policies, focus more on prevention through law enforcement than through
addressing the social causes of sexual exploitation. With the exception of Sri Lanka,
emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration of child victims in most NPAs is based on
institutional interventions; most lack activities to strengthen families and communities to
rehabilitate and reintegrate exploited children.
In the area of sexual abuse and exploitation, as on other social sector issues, policies in South
Asia and elsewhere frequently lack adequate mechanisms for implementation and monitoring.
Contributing to this, many NPAs have poorly defined strategic objectives and lack clear
descriptions of actions needed to achieve them. In addition, it is often not clear to what
extent NPAs are being implemented, or if they are merely statements of desired policies and
outcomes. Although NGOs conduct most interventions addressing prevention, protection and
care, some policies sideline their contribution, designating government structures as
responsible for the majority of interventions. The contribution of families, communities and
children themselves are seldom included in strategies for implementation. In addition, many
government agencies cannot realistically fulfil policy commitments, given their many
demanding priorities. During the civil conflict in Nepal, for example, police were unable to
conduct border surveillance as dictated by the anti-trafficking policy because they were
overburdened with maintaining law and order and defending police posts from attacks by
rebel forces.
Challenges in implementing policies include lack of financial resources and professional
capacity, conflicting agendas among stakeholders and differences in understanding of the
issues. The difficulty of coordination between stakeholders, between government ministries
and between government and NGOs – and the absence of key focal points for coordination –
is frequently cited as a barrier to implementation. Stakeholders, including different
government agencies, often have different resources and funding priorities. At the same time,
policies often do not accommodate realistic funding to implement the intended activities,
either leaving activities unaccomplished or placing the burden of attracting funds on the
NGOs.
27