G20+ Modern Slavery Prevention Index

The Index is an ongoing assessment of governments’ commitments and effectiveness to prevent and address exploitation.

Introduction

This platform contains information, data and analyses of national plans/strategies, activities and resourcing undertaken by G20 and other governments to prevent exploitation. The information and data will be increased and updated on an ongoing basis.

Vulnerable populations can only improve the quality of their lives if they can rely on a safe environment. One that is free from the risk of exploitation and where they can retain the fruits of their labour. It is essential to reduce structural precarity, such as arises from poverty, hunger, discrimination and conflict, and the specific idiosyncratic risks, such as arise from the complexity of national trade and supply chains, reliance on the local informal economy and the extent and nature of criminal activity.

With these risks in mind, we have developed this platform to provide a better perspective of the challenges identified by governments in their work to address exploitation, the formulation of their dedicated plans and strategies, their commitments and objectives, the impacts sought and the resources allocated.

We are very happy to discuss and receive updates and new disclosure from official government representatives to improve the platform. The platform will be updated on an ongoing basis. If you want to receive updates on a periodic basis, please sign up for updates here.

Key Takeaways

Highly asymmetric distribution of funding

There are over 3300 objectives across the current and recent national plans of the 28 countries (+ EU) analysed. These 28 countries spent a total of US$1.6 billion per year. [60%] of this available annual funding is from India, Italy and United States which account for only 15% of the objectives identified. There are too many objectives to achieve with too little funding.

Information on dedicated funding, impact, or implementation is often undisclosed or unspecified under parent agencies

Some governments have disclosed a general funding allocation but not expressly stated a specified dedicated budget line item. The most common example is anti-trafficking activities conducted as part of migration responsibilities.

Too little funding, spread too thinly

 A clear picture has emerged of under-resourcing, limited implementation capacity, and the need for more adaptive plans and strategies to create safe communities where vulnerable people can live and work free from exploitation. In many countries, there is also a need to establish basic permanent infrastructure—such as a dedicated office—to collect data, produce regular reporting, and provide a stable foundation for ongoing efforts.

Few countries can produce an annual report

A few governments, such as the United States, have developed extensive, transparent and well-structured activities across government institutions and agencies. In many other cases, countries do not have a central coordinating agency or office, or even responsible individual, and do not have the capacity to gather victim data and perpetrators or produce a timely annual report. Poor data gathering, reporting and disclosure demonstrate a weak and impermanent administration and infrastructure.

The limitation of the ‘3Ps’

The 3P framework was a guide and a measure for planning. With Goodhart’s law in mind, the 3Ps now seem to be targets rather than measures. Prevention has a heavy focus on awareness campaigns, interagency training, meetings and cooperation. Enforcement is limited to prosecution, with currently extremely low success. Protection is primarily victim care and services, yet many countries cannot produce victims’ data.

Challenges and activities rarely mentioned in national plans and strategies

Issues such as wage theft, document fraud, exploitation in supply chains, proceeds from exploitation (money laundering), collective bargaining, and perpetrator recidivism are infrequently mentioned. Online exploitation has now been incorporated by some governments.

What is the Modern Slavery Prevention Index?

The Index is an ongoing assessment of governments’ commitments and efficacy to prevent exploitation.
A primary measure is to identify dedicated funding and resources allocated and disbursed by each government set against their stated funding aims and objectives, e.g. set out in national plans or strategies.
Essentially, the Index is a “stock-take” of government action to prevent exploitation.
What is exploitation?

Exploitation occurs when individuals, singularly or collectively, become victims of individual or group perpetrators (e.g. family members, labour recruiters, organized criminals or businesses) seeking to benefit from the victims’ labour or action, without rewarding the victims who are unable to terminate the situation of their own volition.
For our Index, exploitation includes modern slavery, human trafficking, forced labour, wage theft, forced marriage, sex exploitation, child exploitation, forced criminality and forms of online exploitation.
What makes an individual or group vulnerable to exploitation?

A primary, and obvious, cause of vulnerability is the exposure to interactions with perpetrators (i.e. organized criminals or corporates).
Victims are targeted on the basis that their, or their dependents, situation requires them to pursue offers of income extremely urgently and/or they are unable to understand perpetrators’ intentions due to their lack of knowledge and experience. For example drivers of vulnerability are poverty, impact of a sudden event (e.g. an urgent health issue or loss of work), migrant status, poor literacy, at-risk communities, and social and/or physical isolation.
Vulnerability can also be deliberately created and sustained by perpetrators using deception, threats and/or acts of violence, physical isolation, psychological pressure, withholding documents or monies and creating debts from loan-sharking.
Government resources for preventing exploitation
To prevent exploitation, governments must pursue two courses of action in parallel:
- first, reduce structural and idiosyncratic conditions, or drivers, that create vulnerability in their populations and communities; and
- second, restrict the capacity for perpetrators to identify and exploit individuals and groups.
The context of the specific challenges faced by each government are fundamental to assessing the efficacy of that government’s planning and capacity.
Our assessment

We start with understanding and identifying the aims and objectives adopted in any relevant national plans and strategies. Then, to understand the investment allocated to achieve these aims and objectives. Finally, to assess the extent of implementation by identifying a government’s capacity to execute basic administration fundamental to successful prevention. For example, a national plan, regular status reports, identifying victims and perpetrators, gathering data on victims and seizure of illicit profits.

Platform Contents

The contents of the platform focus on each government’s (i) planning and strategy formulation; (ii) the nature of the objectives and impact desired; (iii) the courses of action selected; and (iv) the estimated and actual resources allocation for implementation. There is an analysis for G20 governments collectively, which will be completed by year end, and then separate distinct analyses for each government in the G20 and other countries.

Each analysis consists of:

contextual information and data around domestic vulnerability (e.g. domestic poverty, inequality, reliance on informal economy, internet access etc) and risk to those internationally (e.g. via supply chains and money laundering);
national plans and strategies formulated, data gathered, reports generated, victims and perpetrators;
analysis of plan and strategic objectives showing the thematic focus and emphasis;
publicly disclosed dedicated funding made available; and
a brief summary of our conclusions.