Sex workers are often criminalised, stigmatised, and excluded from state support services, especially in emergencies. Double standards in aid policies add to the discrimination, a rights advocate says.
In their policies, many aid groups recognise the agency of sex workers while in practice framing them as victims, says Anna Shapiro, policy lead at Global Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP), an organisation advocating for sex workers’ health and human rights.
“They're supposed to provide humanitarian assistance under the principles of impartiality and neutrality, but when it comes to sex work, their responses are often ideologically fuelled,” she told The New Humanitarian in a recent interview.
Shapiro co-authored an NSWP policy brief outlining how sex workers are disproportionately affected in crises, and urging the aid sector to include them in humanitarian planning for disasters and conflicts.
The concerns of Shapiro and other advocates for sex workers speak to policy divisions within the wider aid system. In June for example, a report by Reem Alsalem, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, called for the purchase of sexual acts to be criminalised – counter to guidelines from agencies like the World Health Organization or UNAIDS.
Prostitution, she wrote, is “a system of exploitation and an aggregated form of male violence against women and girls that intersects with other forms of structural discrimination”. Alsalem rejects the terms “sex work” and “sex worker”, saying women and girls need to be considered “victims” and provided exit paths.
On the other hand, advocates for sex workers have called for the decriminalisation of sex work, saying that criminalisation deepens the risk of harm. They see Alsalem’s report as the latest example of how the UN system confuses sex work with exploitation and abuse, and say that sex work should be viewed simply as work.
Shapiro spoke with The New Humanitarian about the contradictions in aid policy when it comes to sex workers, how donor rules add to the exclusion, and where the humanitarian principles come into play.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
The New Humanitarian: How are sex workers affected during humanitarian crises?
Anna Shapiro: Where there’s a breakdown of law and order, we see more impunity for perpetrators of violence. Most violence against sex workers goes unpunished because sex work is largely criminalised and heavily stigmatised. Socio-economic challenges increase, including a loss of income and housing, food insecurity, and family separation. These are particularly challenging as sex workers are largely excluded from social protection schemes and emergency response measures.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, sex workers were largely excluded from aid because their work is criminalised and not considered a legitimate form of employment. Financial challenges can exacerbate sex workers’ vulnerability due to reduced negotiation power with clients. In humanitarian crises, there may be fewer income opportunities for sex workers, which may compel them to make compromises regarding health and safety, such as taking clients who want services without condoms. They also become more vulnerable to violence, HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and unintended pregnancies.
The New Humanitarian: Your report describes how humanitarian responses are often biased against sex workers. Why does this happen?
Shapiro: Sex workers often report that they're discriminated against by service providers, which makes them reluctant to access services. Part of the issue is that we often see the conflation of their work with trafficking in humanitarian responses, and workers are mistaken for trafficking victims or pressured to exit sex work as a condition for accessing services. That adds to alienating sex workers from services and it makes it harder for sex work-related organisations to collaborate.
The UN’s zero tolerance policy for sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), considers purchasing sex services from a sex worker as a form of SEA regardless of the legal status of sex work in that country. It sends a really strong message to UN staff that purchasing sex is exploitative, fundamentally and morally reprehensible, no matter what the circumstances are.
The New Humanitarian: Why is it a problem?
Shapiro: It’s problematic because it denies sex workers agency and self-determination by framing them as victims. When you ban the purchase of consensual sexual services, it not only undermines sex workers’ right to work and earn a living, but doesn't do anything to address real issues with exploitation when they do occur, and with how we got to that point.
The New Humanitarian: How did we get there?
Shapiro: Policies and narratives stem from a certain sector of the feminist movement which views all sex work as a form of exploitation, abuse, or trafficking. These ideologies may also be intertwined with stereotypes about gender, race, and class, and when all of those things coalesce, it forms a very dire and disempowering narrative of these so-called poor, helpless women who need protection and saving. In reality, that's not the case at all for the vast majority of sex workers.
The New Humanitarian: But in many humanitarian settings, sex workers may be poor women who may be more vulnerable with regard to abuse and exploitation…
Shapiro: Being poor does not automatically mean that you're being exploited or abused, as is the case for any other job. Many sex workers choose their work for economic reasons. Why does anybody work? For many people, sex work may even offer wages that are higher than other lines of work, and can actually have a positive impact on economic empowerment and independence.
There's a double standard, because we wouldn't try to argue that a woman who tries to make ends meet by selling produce by the side of the road or as a house cleaner, as being abused. But why would we say that for a woman who chooses sex work?
The New Humanitarian: Are UN and major humanitarian groups conflicted about how they respond to sex workers?
Shapiro: I would say that there's quite a degree of disconnect. Within the UN system, we have a number of agencies – such as WHO, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNDP, as well as various mandate holders and working groups – calling for the decriminalisation of sex work, and [to] recognise sex work as work. But on the other hand, there’s the policy applying to UN staff defining purchasing sex as a form of sexual exploitation. That's sending a very different message to staff compared to what these agencies are outwardly projecting.
For major aid groups, I would say that there's also a degree of contradiction, because they're supposed to provide humanitarian assistance under the principles of impartiality and neutrality, but when it comes to sex work, their responses are often ideologically fuelled and they promote a certain narrative.
The New Humanitarian: Are donors themselves split on how to support sex workers in crisis situations?
Shapiro: Yes, donors all have their own ideologies which affect how they support or don't support sex workers in crisis situations or outside of crisis situations. We particularly see how that plays out among donors governments which have adopted the Nordic model of sex work legislation. The Nordic or abolitionist model is what these feminists subscribe to who conflate sex work with trafficking. For example, in Ukraine, our members have reported aid from France and Sweden or Nordic-model countries that is only available to organisations supporting the abolition of sex work, and excludes sex worker-led organisations eager to provide direct crisis support to their communities.
Even among donors that are not strictly adhering to that particular ideology, I would still stress that there's a dire shortage of funding for sex worker-led programming, including in the context of humanitarian settings and crises. It's a huge problem, because sex workers are best placed to identify and address the needs of their own communities. Allowing sex workers to do that, and resourcing them to do that would ultimately improve the sustainability of humanitarian responses.
The New Humanitarian: Are any aid organisations getting the response approach right, from your perspective?
Shapiro: The UNFPA and UN refugee agency published operational guidance on responding to the health and protection needs of people selling sex or exchanging sex in humanitarian settings. I think guidance like that is a really important step towards centering the needs of sex workers in humanitarian crises and recognising sex workers as rights-bearers and people able to consent and make choices in their own lives, and not as victims. We still need to see these values operationalised throughout the whole UN system and in other humanitarian responses, and more support and resources allocated directly to sex worker-led programming and humanitarian responses.
There's a long way to go. It's a great start, but we need to continue to work for more meaningful involvement of sex workers in the development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of responses in humanitarian settings as it affects their communities.
