04 October 2010
UN GIFT (United Nations) – The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking’s (UN GIFT) Small Grants Facility Programme chose 12 civil service organizations (CSOs) to get financial aid for their victim support plans. The chosen CSO’s focus on victim support, empowerment for the vulnerable, cooperation with NGO’s, and evidence collection. The CSO’s financial aid distribution and selection were prioritized by the income level of the CSO’s nation of operation. The CSO’s are based in Afghanistan, Albania, Brazil, India, Ireland, Laos, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, Togo, Ukraine, and Macedonia and all have begun to use the funds in their victim support plans.
Source:
(Reliability: 9/10)
Comment: (Source Reliability: No inaccuracy visible in this source. The 9 score for this source was given for a potential bias in the report. As the source of this information is the UN, a certain level of politics may have been involved in a potential suppression of information. The source does not mention any other criteria (such as UN policy urgency, diplomatic relations, etc.) for grant selection. The possibility exists that the fund may have utilized other non-disclosed criteria in its selection process since some of the nations listed (Afghanistan, Laos, Thailand, and Ukraine) are all hot spots for trafficking activity. The selection of CSO's in these nations may have been, as mentioned, out an attempt to quickly improve anti-trafficking efforts or establish better UN relations. In order to prevent a sense of preference among nations, the UN may have suppressed such criteria in its public statements. However, as this contention can not be proven, the contention must be relegated as a possibility, must not greatly impact the reliability of the source, and be slightly considered in future analysis.)
Comment: (Source Reliability: No inaccuracy visible in this source. The 9 score for this source was given for a potential bias in the report. As the source of this information is the UN, a certain level of politics may have been involved in a potential suppression of information. The source does not mention any other criteria (such as UN policy urgency, diplomatic relations, etc.) for grant selection. The possibility exists that the fund may have utilized other non-disclosed criteria in its selection process since some of the nations listed (Afghanistan, Laos, Thailand, and Ukraine) are all hot spots for trafficking activity. The selection of CSO's in these nations may have been, as mentioned, out an attempt to quickly improve anti-trafficking efforts or establish better UN relations. In order to prevent a sense of preference among nations, the UN may have suppressed such criteria in its public statements. However, as this contention can not be proven, the contention must be relegated as a possibility, must not greatly impact the reliability of the source, and be slightly considered in future analysis.)
No comments:
Post a Comment