2018

Photo credit: Sub.Coop

MODERN SLAVERY:
A HIDDEN, EVERYDAY PROBLEM.
In 2016, 40.3 million people were living in modern
slavery. It exists in every corner of the world, yet isseemingly invisible to most people. Unravelling thisproblem requires sustained vigilance and action.
Take this fire in a clandestine textile workshop in
Buenos Aires, Argentina. These images are from2006, yet the fight for justice for the five boys and apregnant woman who were forced to work at thisfacility, and died in this fire, is still ongoing. In 2016,a court sentenced the workshop operator to 13 years
prison for servitude and destruction of property
causing death. This year, the court called for adeposition from the owner of the clothing brands,
who also owns the property.
The fight to end modern slavery continues.
We can, and must, do more.

Copyright © 2018. The Minderoo Foundation Pty Ltd.
All rights reserved.

ii

Global Slavery Index 2018

Unravelling the numbers
71%
Female15.4

million in forced marriage

40.3 million

29%

Male

people in modern slavery in 2016

Prevalenceof modern slavery

See p.34 for spotlighton North Korea

high

24.9

million in forced labour

low

iii

Highlights﻿﻿

How governments respond
Most
actionNetherlands
United States
United Kingdom
SwedenBelgium
Croatia
Spain
NorwayPortugalMontenegro

LeastactionGovernment

responses to modern slavery

North Korea
Libya
Eritrea
Central African Republic
Iran
Equatorial Guinea
BurundiRepublic of the Congo
Sudan
Mauritania
See p.192 for full data tablestrong

weak
not
rated

Georgia
Moldova
SenegalSierra Leone
Mozambique

Qatar
Singapore
KuwaitBruneiHong Kong, China

Strong response

Weak response

relative to GDP (PPP)*

relative to GDP (PPP)**Gross Domestic Product (Purchasing Power Parity)

iv

Global Slavery Index 2018

G20 leaders in consumption$354 billion

Exportrisk

Importrisk

at-risk products imported by G20 countries*

At-riskproducts of modern slavery
See p.103 for product key

144b

Top 5

Fish

products at risk of modern slavery
imported into the G20 (by US $ value)3/

Laptops, computers& mobile phones

1/

Cocoa

$200.1 billion

4/$3.6 billion
Sugarcane

Garments

2/$12.9 billion$127.7 billion

5/$2.1 billion

47b

30b
18b

16b

15b 14b12b 10b

10b 8b

7b

6b

6b

5b

3b

3b 739m*This is based on trade data for 18 of the G20 countries, not including South Africa or the European Union (see Appendix 3).

Highlights﻿﻿

v

Governments, businesses, & consumers…
G20 countries
12
7
countries
not taking action

Argentina
Australia*
CanadaIndia
Indonesia
Japan
MexicoRussiaSouth Africa
Saudi Arabia
South Korea
Turkey*Australia has announced
it will introduce supply
chain transparency laws
in the second half of 2018need to take action to stop sourcing
goods & services at risk of being
produced by forced labour

countries
taking action

BrazilChina
FranceGermany
Italy
United Kingdom
United States

Slavery in supply chains
Government response on Imports, Public Procurement,
Business Supply Chains, Identifying Risk is critical
See p.107 for details on actions being taken.

Governments

Businesses

Consumers…must do more
*This includes 19 G20 countries. The 20th member, the European Union, is a regional grouping so does not have national laws as such.

vi

Global Slavery Index 2018

A Rohingya refugee, covered in mud, during her flight from Myanmar into Bangladesh. Following
murders, rape and violence targeting Rohingya in Myanmar, by April 2018, around 900,000 Rohingya
had fled their homes and sought shelter across the border in Bangladesh, where they are living mostly
in temporary, muddy camps. If the international community does nothing to address the enormous risks
resulting from this mass displacement, the Rohingya will be the next population of deeply exploited andabused people – further compounding and reinforcing what is already a deeply entrenched conflict.
Photo credit: GMB AkashForeword

FOREWORD

vii

by Andrew Forrest

Too often, the onus of eliminating modern slavery is placed
only on the countries where the crime is perpetrated. They
certainly have a responsibility, but they are not alone inthis regard.
An atrocity as large and pervasive as modern slavery
requires a united, global response.
Last year, the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery, developedwith the International Labour Organization and International
Organization for Migration, showed that more than 40 million
people globally are living in modern slavery and over a periodof five years, 89 million people experienced some form ofslavery – whether for a few days or several years. These
numbers represent people held in debt bondage on fishingboats, against their will as domestic servants, trapped in
marriages they never agreed to, and numerous other abuses.
Though almost every country has declared it illegal, modern
slavery still exists on a shocking and unacceptable scalein these and many other forms. And yet, action from thecountries most equipped to respond is underwhelming.
By declaring modern slavery as a problem that happens“over there”, high-GDP countries are ignoring theirculpability for this human rights crisis.
The Walk Free Foundation’s 2018 Global Slavery Index
makes this clearer than ever before.
As well as measuring where modern slavery occurs andhow governments are responding, for the first time the
Global Slavery Index also provides a picture of the factorsthat allow modern slavery to prosper, and where theproducts of the crime are sold and consumed.
This complete picture draws high-GDP countries into
sharp focus.
We have a better grasp on prevalence in high-GDP
countries – it is greater than we previously understood.
We better understand the factors which contribute tomodern slavery – migration, conflict, repressive regimes,
unethical business, environmental destruction anddiscrimination. While responsibility for some of thesefactors belongs with the countries where modern slavery
is occurring, some of these factors are directly linked topolicy decisions of high GDP countries.

And, the 2018 Global Slavery Index finds businesses andgovernments in G20 countries are importing products thatare at risk of modern slavery on a significant scale.
Our analysis identified the “top five” products at risk ofmodern slavery in each of the G20 countries – it includes
common items such as laptops, computers and mobile
phones, apparel and accessories, fish, cocoa and timber.
G20 countries are collectively importing US$354 billion
worth of these at-risk products annually.
Disappointingly, only seven G20 countries have formallyenacted laws, policies, or practices to stop business andgovernment sourcing goods and services produced byforced labour.
As well as providing countries with the tools to address
slavery within their borders, it is important all countries
consider the issue from a global perspective, andcollaborate on solutions.
To end modern slavery, high-GDP countries must examine
how their policy decisions contribute to the conditions
which allow modern slavery to prosper abroad, and theextent to which the profits of modern slavery permeate
their borders.
Our recommendations call on all governments to prioritisehuman rights when engaging with repressive regimes,
predict and respond to slavery in conflict situations,address modern slavery at home, examine public andprivate supply chains, and advocate for the rights ofwomen and girls globally.
Businesses must join this fight by collaborating withgovernment, addressing the risk of modern slavery in their
supply chains and providing transparency to investors andconsumers.
“Over there” doesn’t exist in this fight – we must all work as
one to end slavery for good.

viii

Global Slavery Index 2018

CONTENTSHIGHLIGHTS

ii

FOREWORDv

01 NAVIGATING THE INDEX

1

Executive Summary
About the Index
Methodology

268

02 ESSAYS

12

Two steps forward, yes. But it’s a change in mindset that is needed.
Fiona David, Walk Free Foundation

14

Modern slavery: A global phenomenon
Kevin Hyland, Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, UK

16

Survivors are speaking. Are we listening?
Minh Dang, University of Nottingham

18

Public procurement: The trillion-dollar missing link
Andrew Forrest AO, Fortescue Metals Group & Chevaan Daniel,
The Capital Maharaja Organisation Limited

20

Unfinished business: Addressing the victimisation of women and girls
Jacqueline Joudo Larsen, Walk Free Foundation

22

03 GLOBAL FINDINGS
What does the data tell us about modern slavery?
Key trends
Comparability of the prevalence estimates to the previous
Global Slavery Index
What are governments doing to address modern slavery?
04 SPOTLIGHT ON SECTORS
Modern slavery in the fishing industry
Modern slavery in cocoa agriculture in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire
05 REGIONAL FINDINGS
Prevalence across the regions
Vulnerability across the regions
Government responses across the regions
AfricaAmericas
Arab States
Asia & the Pacific
Europe & Central Asia

26
27
30
32
40
46
48
56
60
62
64
66
68
76
82
86
92

Contents﻿

06 IMPORTING RISK
Why focus on the G20?
Understanding the risk imported by G20 countries
What does the analysis tell us?
What are G20 governments doing?
Maps of top 5 at-risk products imported by G20 countries
07 APPENDICES

100
102
103
104
107
120
138

Appendix 1: Terminology

140

Appendix 2: Part A: Global Slavery Index Vulnerability Model
Why measure vulnerability?
Section 1: Development of the Vulnerability Model
Section 2: Overview of 2018 Vulnerability Model development
Section 3: Description of variables in final model by dimension
Section 4: Data limitations

142
142
142
143
154
164

Appendix 2: Part B: Global Slavery Index Prevalence Estimation
Global Estimates of Modern Slavery
From global and regional to national estimates
Data limitations
Comparability with previous estimates

166
166
169
182
183

Appendix 2: Part C: Global Slavery Index Government Response Index
Theoretical framework: crime prevention theory
Development of the conceptual framework
Process
Limitations
Comparability

184
184
185
185
191
191

Appendix 3: Methodology for identifying risk of modern slavery
in products imported by the G20
1. Objective
2. Identifying a list of products at risk of modern slavery
3. Import Data
4. Bibliography of products at risk of modern slavery

220
220
220
222
230

Appendix 4: Methodology for assessing vulnerability to modern slavery
in fisheries
Background
Assessing vulnerability to modern slavery at sea

240
240
241

ix

Global Slavery Index 2018

01 NAVIGATINGTHE INDEX

Executive Summary

2
2
3
4
4
5

The contributing factors
A global issue
Government responses
Progress, but challenges remain
Recommendations

6

About the Index
Walk Free Foundation

6

Methodology

8

Estimating prevalence
Measuring vulnerability
Measuring government response

8
10
11

Uzbekistan, October 2017.
Workers stay at a former school in a village in Tashkent region, hours fromtheir hometown. The building is dilapidated, cold and ruined. They sleep on
the floor and eat breakfast in the former gym having been forcibly mobilized
to pick cotton. Forced labour has been a regular feature of cotton harvests
in post-Soviet Uzbekistan. However, in mid-September 2017, the Uzbek
President referred to ending forced labour in a speech to the United Nations
and the government recalled school children and state workers from thefields. While this is great progress, implementation needs to be supported
and carefully monitored. NGO monitors revealed that even as workers arebeing brought back from the fields, some local officials are extorting funds
from businesses and individuals to pay for “replacement” workers. Activists
trying to monitor the situation also report being threatened and harassed.
Photo credit:Yuri Kozyrev / NOOR

Navigating the Index

1

2

Global Slavery Index 2018EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Depriving someone of their freedom is a terrible violation. Modern slavery is a
destructive, personal crime and an abuse of human rights. It is a widespread andprofitable criminal industry but despite this it is largely invisible, in part because
it disproportionately affects the most marginalised. This is why measuring thisproblem is so crucial in exposing and ultimately resolving it. The information
contained within the Global Slavery Index is critical in these efforts.

The 2018 Global Slavery Index measures the extent
of modern slavery country by country, and the steps
governments are taking to respond to this issue, toobjectively measure progress toward ending modern slavery.
The Index draws together findings from across estimates ofprevalence, measurement of vulnerability, and assessment ofgovernment responses, alongside an analysis of trade flows
and data on specific products. When considered as a set,
the data provide a complex and insightful picture of the ways
modern slavery is impacting countries around the world. This
enables us to refine our thinking on how to better respond tomodern slavery, and also how to predict and prevent modern
slavery in future.

critical forms of modern slavery such as recruitment ofchildren by armed groups and organ trafficking due tolack of data. From this starting point, the 2018 Global
Slavery Index uses predictive modelling, based on datafrom nationally representative surveys and the Walk
Free Foundation Vulnerability Model, to estimate theprevalence of modern slavery country by country.

The contributing factors

Findings from the 2018 Global Slavery Index highlight the
As reported in the recent Global Estimates of Modern
connection between modern slavery and two major external
Slavery, published by the International Labour
drivers - highly repressive regimes, inOrganization and the Walk Free
which populations are put to work to
Foundation, in partnership withprop up the government, and conflict
The findings highlight thethe International Organization forsituations which result in the breakdown
connection between modern
Migration, an estimated 40.3 millionof rule of law, social structures, andslavery and two major external existing systems of protection.
people were living in modern slavery
in 2016. In other words, on any given drivers - highly repressive regimes,
The country with the highest estimatedday in 2016, there were more thanin which people are put to work prevalence is North Korea. In North
40 million people – about 70 percent
to prop up the government, and Korea, one in 10 people are in modernof whom are women and girls – whoslavery with the clear majority forced toconflict situations which result
were being forced to work against
their will under threat or who werein the breakdown of rule of law, work by the state. As a UN Commissionof Inquiry has observed, violations ofliving in a forced marriage. In thesocial structures, and systems
human rights in North Korea are notpast five years, 89 million peopleofprotection.
mere excesses of the state, they areexperienced some form of modern
an essential component of the politicalslavery for periods of time ranging
system. This is reflected in the researchfrom a few days to the whole five years. These estimates
on
North
Korea
undertaken
through interviews with defectors
are conservative, given the gaps in existing data in key
for
this
GlobalSlavery
Index.
North Korea is followed closely
regions such as the Arab States and also exclusions ofNavigating the Index

3

Nicoleta, 34, Romanian survivor of forced labour and forced sexual exploitation in Sicily“I came to Sicily with my husband. We needed to send money back to support our children in Romania.
But the greenhouse farmer where we found work said I had to sleep with him, and if I refused, hewouldn’t pay us. My husband said it was the only way we could keep our work. My employer threatened
me with a gun, and when he finished, he just walked away. This went on for months. I left both the farmand my husband, but found out it is the same wherever you try to find work here in Sicily.”
Photo credit: Francesca Commissari for The Guardianby Eritrea, a repressive regime that abuses its conscription
system to hold its citizens in forced labour for decades. These
countries have some of the weakest responses to modern
slavery and the highest risk.
The 10 countries with highest prevalence of modern slavery
globally, along with North Korea and Eritrea, are Burundi,
the Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Mauritania,
South Sudan, Pakistan, Cambodia, and Iran. Most of thesecountries are marked by conflict, with breakdowns in ruleof law, displacement and a lack of physical security (Eritrea,
Burundi, the Central African Republic, Afghanistan, South
Sudan and Pakistan). Three of the 10 countries with thehighest prevalence stand out as having state-imposed
forced labour (North Korea, Eritrea and Burundi). Indeed,
North Korea, Eritrea, Burundi, the Central African Republic,Afghanistan, South Sudan and Iran are the subject of various
UN Security Council resolutions reflecting the severity andextremity of the situations there.

A global issue
One of the most important findings of the 2018 Global Slavery
Index is that the prevalence of modern slavery in high-GDP
countries is higher than previously understood, underscoring
the responsibilities of these countries. Through collaboration,
the number of data sources which inform the Index has
increased. This has allowed the Index to more consistently
measure prevalence in countries where exploitation has
taken place. More surveys in sending countries has resulted
in more data about receiving countries, most of which arehighly developed. Following these changes, an interesting
pattern emerges: the prevalence estimates for the UnitedStates, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany,
the Netherlands, and several other European nations arehigher than previously understood. Given these are also
the countries taking the most action to respond to modern
slavery, this does not mean these initiatives are in vain. It does,
however, underscore that even in countries with seemingly
strong laws and systems, there are critical gaps in protections
for groups such as irregular migrants, the homeless, workers
in the shadow or gig economy, and certain minorities. Thesegaps, which are being actively exploited by criminals, needurgent attention from governments.
The realities of global trade and commerce make it inevitable
the products and proceeds of modern slavery will crossborders. Accordingly, for the first time we examine the issueof modern slavery not only from the perspective of where thecrime is perpetrated but also where the products of the crime
are sold and consumed, with a specific focus on the G20
countries. The resulting analysis presents a stark contrast ofrisk and responsibility, with G20 countries importing risk ona scale not matched by their responses.
Citizens of most G20 countries enjoy relatively low levelsof vulnerability to the crime of modern slavery within theirborders, and many aspects of their governments’ responses
to it are comparatively strong. Nonetheless, businesses andgovernments in G20 countries are importing products that are
at risk of modern slavery on a significant scale. Looking onlyat the “top five” at-risk products in each country identified by
our analysis, G20 countries are collectively importing US$354
billion worth of at-risk products annually.

4

Global Slavery Index 2018

Of greatest concern is the continuing trade in coal from
North Korea, alongside other products that are subject to
UN Security Council sanctions. However, most of the at-risk
products examined for this report are not subject to existing
sanctions. Rather, information about risk of modern slavery
can be found in research and media reports, and occasionallycourt cases. G20 countries are only just beginning to respondto this risk, through a growing focus on modern slavery inthe supply chains of business and government, but existing
efforts are not nearly enough. The Government Response
Index reveals that more than half of the G20 countries are yet
to formally enact laws, policies or practices aimed at stopping
business and government sourcing goods and services
produced by forced labour (Argentina, Australia, Canada,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Saudi
Arabia, South Korea, and Turkey). The exceptions are China,
Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, UK, and the United States, eachof which has begun to take some steps in this regard. Australia
has announced it will introduce supply chain transparency
laws in the second half of 2018.

Government responses

individual governments can do much more than they are
doing to proactively engage with business to prevent forced
labour in supply chains and in public procurement.

Progress, but challenges remain
The 2018 edition of the Global Slavery Index introduces
new ways to look at an existing problem, drawing on a
growing data set and increasingly sophisticated analysis.
This deepens our understanding of the different contexts
where modern slavery is likely to flourish and helps us
predict the next flashpoint. For example, it is clear that if
the international community does nothing to address theenormous risks resulting from the mass displacement of
hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people to temporary
camps in Bangladesh, this will be the next populationof deeply exploited and abused people – further
compounding and reinforcing what is already a deeply
entrenched conflict. It is equally clear that businesses andgovernments continuing to trade with highly repressive
regimes such as North Korea and Eritrea are contributing
to the maintenance of forced labour.

The research also highlights the responsibilities held by
While much more needs to be done to prevent andboth low-GDP and high-GDP countries. All governments
respond to modern slavery, the Government Response
have committed to work together to achieve Sustainable
Index suggests that national legal, policy, and programmatic
Development Goal 8.7 on eradicating modern slavery. In
responses to modern slavery are improving, with an
this regard, high-GDP countries cannot simply rely on doing
upward trend overall in ratings for government responses.
more of the same – there is an urgent need to prioritise
Globally, governments are taking more action to strengthen
prevention, through a focus on discrimination and safe
legislation and establish coordination and accountability
migration. Equally, high-GDP countries have an obligation tomechanisms. Protection measures are being strengthened,take serious and urgent steps to address
with improvements in access to justice
the risks they are importing. They owe
for adults and children in some countries.
this obligation both to consumers in their
There
is
an
urgentneedtoNonetheless, in every country, there areprioritise prevention, through own countries and to victims along theenormous gaps between the estimatedsupply chain, where products are being
size of modern slavery and the small a focus on discrimination andharvested, packed and shipped.
number of victims that are identified.
safe migration.
This edition of the Global Slavery Index
This suggests efforts that exist on paper
introduces important improvements to theare not being implemented effectively.
ways prevalence of modern slavery is measured. Building on
Furthermore, in many countries, critical gaps in services
the collaborative work undertaken with the ILO and IOM on
remain, with 50 percent of countries excluding either
the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery, the Global Slavery
migrants, men, or children from accessing services. Not
Index results reflect changes to scope, methodology, andonly are certain groups of victims not being identified, evenexpanded data sources. The estimates are presented as awhen they are detected they are not able to access support
stock (or point in time) calculation rather than a flow (total
and other services.
over a period of time), include state imposed forced labour,
Moreover, high-GDP countries such as Qatar, Singapore,and better estimates of sexual exploitation, and children in
Kuwait, Brunei and Hong Kong are doing very little tomodern slavery. Further, we were able to count exploitation
respond despite their wealth and resources, while lowwhere it occurred more consistently due to a considerably
GDP countries such as Georgia, Moldova, Senegal, Sierra
larger number of national surveys.
Leone and Mozambique are responding relatively strongly.
As a result of these advancements, the national prevalence
Government engagement with business on modern slavery
estimates are not comparable with previous editions of
has increased dramatically since the 2016 Global Slavery
the Global Slavery Index. Nonetheless, the strengthened
Index. In 2018, 36 countries are taking steps to address
methodology reflects stronger data, increased levels of
forced labour in business or public supply chains, compareddata, and more systematic coverage of different forms of
to only four countries in 2016. However, these steps are often
modern slavery. As such, while comparability from previous
to establish the bare minimum of reporting requirements;
years is lost, the changes are justified by the need tocontinually improve our knowledge base.

Navigating the Index

5

Recommendations
1 / Governments and businesses
prioritise human rights in decision
making when engaging withrepressive regimes.
»» Deliver on financial and trade restrictions imposedby the UN Security Council, such as those in placeagainst North Korea.
»» Conduct due diligence and transparency of business
operations, to ensure that any trade, business orinvestment is not contributing to or benefiting frommodern slavery (or other human rights abuses).
»» Establish active efforts to drive positive social change
through economic and business relationships.

2 / Governments proactively anticipate
and respond to modern slavery inconflict situations.
»» Create protective systems to identify and assist victims,
and at-risk populations both during conflict and in postconflict settings (including in neighbouring countries).
»» Collect and preserve evidence to ensure perpetrators
can be punished.
»» Prioritise international cooperation to investigate andprosecute perpetrators.

3 / Governments improve modern
slavery responses at home.
»» Improve prevention, including through prioritising safe
migration and steps to combat deep discrimination,
whether against ethnic minorities, women and girls
or migrants.
»» Close the gap between the estimated size of modern
slavery and the small numbers of victims that aredetected and assisted, through implementing laws to
identify victims. If laws are not working, the question
should be asked why, so barriers can be foundand overcome.
»» Ensure labour laws protect all workers, including
migrant workers, temporary and casual workers, andall people working in the informal economy.
»» Ensure all victims can access services, support
and justice, whether they are male, female,children, foreigners or nationals and regardless of
migration status.

4 / G20 governments and businesses
address modern slavery in supply
chains.
»» Conduct due diligence and transparency in public
procurement to guarantee public funds are notinadvertently supporting modern slavery.
»» Conduct due diligence and transparency in private
supply chains, using legislation that is harmonised
across countries.
»» Ensure the ethical recruitment of migrant workers,
including through prohibiting charging workers fees tosecure work and withholding identification documents.

5 / Governments prioritise responses toviolations against women and girls.
»» Eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls.
»» Eliminate harmful practices such as child, early andforced marriage and female genital mutilation.
»» End abuse and exploitation of children.
»» Facilitate safe, orderly and responsible migration.
Country level recommendations can be found on the country
pages on the website. Regional level recommendations canbe found in the forthcoming region reports.

6

Global Slavery Index 2018

ABOUT THE INDEXWalk Free Foundation
Modern slavery is a complex and often hidden crime thatcrosses borders, sectors, and jurisdictions. The Walk Free
Foundation believes that a strong multifaceted approachis needed to end modern slavery. This includes building arobust knowledge base to inform action, driving legislativechange in key countries and harnessing the power ofbusinesses and faiths. Through a combination of direct
implementation, grassroots community engagement, andworking in partnership with faiths, businesses, academics,
NGOs, and governments around the world, the Walk Free
Foundation believes we can end modern slavery.
The Walk Free Foundation provides the Secretariat for theBali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons
and Related Transnational Crime, and champions businesssector engagement in this regional program. It is also
advocating strongly for all leading global economies toenact laws to ensure all organisations are held accountable
for taking proactive steps to remove modern slavery fromtheir supply chains. The Walk Free Foundation’s Global

Slavery Index has developed world leading research toprovide measurement of the size and scale of modern
slavery, as well as assess country-level vulnerability andgovernmental responses. Together with the International
Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Organization
for Migration (IOM), the Walk Free Foundation developed
the joint Global Estimates of Modern Slavery.
Alongside this, the Global Freedom Network is working tocatalyse world faiths in the fight against modern slavery.
The Walk Free Foundation is also scaling effective antislavery responses in partnership with the Freedom Fundand seed funded the global activist movement, Freedom
United, whose community of eight million supporters
are campaigning for change. The Walk Free Foundation
continues to work with faiths, governments and NGOs
throughout the world to agitate for change and support
initiatives dedicated to the eradication of modern slavery
in all its forms.

Navigating the Index

What is modern slavery?

About modern slavery
Modern slavery is a hidden crime that affects every country
in the world. In the period between this Index and the last
(published in 2016), modern slavery was found in manyindustries including garment manufacturing, mining, andagriculture, and in many contexts, from private homes tosettlements for internally displaced people and refugees.
Instances have been identified in Thai fishing, coal mining
in North Korea, in the homes of diplomats in Australia, carwash stations in the United Kingdom, cocoa agriculture in
Côte d’Ivoire, and cattle ranching in Brazil, just to name afew examples.

FIGURE 1
Modern slavery is an umbrella term

DERN SLAVERY
MO
Trafficking for labourand sexual exploitation

Forced labour

Forced labour
as a result offorced marriage

Human
trafficking(cross border andwithin a country)

Slavery andslavery like practices(including forced
marriage)

Trafficking for slavery
and slavery likepractices

Terminology
Countries use differing terminologies to describe modern
forms of slavery. This includes how they describe slavery
itself, but also other concepts such as human trafficking,forced labour, debt bondage, forced or servile marriage,
and the sale and exploitation of children.
In this report, modern slavery is used as an umbrella termthat focuses attention on the commonalities across theseconcepts. Essentially, it refers to situations of exploitationthat a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats,
violence, coercion, deception, abuse of power, or deception.1
Refer to Appendix 1 for full terminology.

7

Modern slavery impacts on all of us, from the food we
consume to the goods we purchase. It is everyone’s
responsibility to address and eliminate this crime
everywhere it occurs.
Nearly every country in the world has committed toeradicate modern slavery through their national legislationand policies. Governments have a central role to playby enacting legislation, providing safety nets to their
populations, and pursuing criminals who participate inthis heinous crime. As no single actor can address allthese challenges, governments need the support andengagement of the private sector, civil society, and thecommunity at large.

The Index
The Global Slavery Index is a tool for citizens, non-governmentorganisations (NGOs), businesses, and governments tounderstand the size of the problem, existing responses, andcontributing factors so that they can advocate for and build
sound policies that will eradicate modern slavery.
All supporting data tables and methodology are available
to download from the Global Slavery Index website:www.globalslaveryindex.org.

8

Global Slavery Index 2018

METHODOLOGY
Estimating prevalence
In 2017, the inaugural Global Estimates of Modern Slavery
were produced by the ILO and the Walk Free Foundationin partnership with IOM. The regional estimates produced
through this collaboration form the starting point for thenational level estimates presented here for 167 countries.
These national estimates were calculated2 using individualand country-level risk factors of modern slavery. The
analysis draws on data from nationally representative
surveys implemented through the Gallup World Poll,
including a module on modern slavery in 48 countries,
and data from the Global Slavery Index Vulnerability
Model. The final set of risk factors were selected from an

exhaustive list of variables to optimally predict confirmed
cases of forced labour and forced marriage. The model wasthen used to generate average predicted probabilities ofmodern slavery by country. The regional totals in the 2017
Global Estimate were then apportioned based on eachcountry’s average predicted probability of modern slavery.
A final calculation accounting for state imposed forced
labour was performed to reach the final estimatedprevalence of all forms of modern slavery.
A detailed description of the methodology is set out inAppendix 2: Part B.

Interviewer for Gallup conducting
an interview in Nepal.
Photo credit: Gallup

Navigating the Index

9

FIGURE 2
Estimating the prevalence of slavery at the national-level1/

Individual and country-level risk factors wereidentified and then used to build a model thatpredicts modern slavery. This drew on data fromthe Global Slavery Index Vulnerability Model andnationally representative surveys.

AFRICA

2/

Individual predictions were aggregated into
country-level risk scores.

4/ he number of victims was then estimated byT
applying the country prevalence estimate topopulation data for each country and estimates ofstate imposed forced labour added to arrive at the
final estimate of all forms of modern slavery.

40.3m
EUROPEAMERICAS

ASIA PACIFIC

ARAB STATES

3/

 egional-level population estimates of modernRslavery from the 2017 Global Estimate wereallocated to individual countries in the region,
proportionate to each country’s relative risk.

10

Global Slavery Index 2018

Measuring vulnerability
The Global Slavery Index Vulnerability Model is built on
statistical testing and processes to identify the factorsthat explain or predict the prevalence of modern slavery.
The 2018 Vulnerability Model provides a risk score for 167
countries based on an analysis of data covering 23 risk
variables across five major dimensions.
A detailed description of the methodology is set out inAppendix 2: Part A.
FIGURE 3
Vulnerability Model 2018

01 Governance Issues
Political Instability,
GSI Government Response,
Women’s Physical Security,
Political Rights, Regulatory
Quality, Disabled Rights,
Weapons Access

02 Lack of Basic Needs

05 Effects of Conflict
Impact of Terrorism,
Internal Conflicts Fought,
Internally Displaced
Persons
Vulnerability
Score

04 DisenfranchisedGroups
Acceptance of Immigrants,
Acceptance of Minorities,
Same Sex Rights

Undernourishment,
Social Safety Net,
Ability to Borrow Money,
Tuberculosis, Accessto Clean Water,
Cell Phone Users

03 Inequality
Ability to Obtain
Emergency Funds, Violent
Crime, Gini Coefficient,
Confidence in the
Judicial System

Navigating the Index

11

Measuring government response
The Government Response Index provides a comparative
assessment of the legal, policy, and programmatic actions
that 181 governments are taking to respond to modern
slavery. This is based on data collected on 104 indicatorsthat are relevant to understanding how each governmentis tracking towards achieving five milestones:
1 / Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit
and remain out of slavery.
2 / Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively
to prevent modern slavery.

3 / Coordination occurs at the national and regional level,
and governments are held to account for their response.
4 / Risk factors such as attitudes, social systems, andinstitutions that enable modern slavery are addressed.
5 / Government and business stop sourcing goods andservices produced by forced labour.
A detailed description of the methodology is set out inAppendix 2: Part C.

FIGURE 4
Government Response Index 2018

Milestone 01
Identify andsupport survivors

Milestone 05
Clean upgovernmentand businesssupply chains

Milestone 02
Establish effective
criminal justicemechanisms

Government
Response Index

Milestone 04
Address risk
factors

Milestone 03
Strengthen
coordination andhold governments
to account12

Global Slavery Index 201802 ESSAYS
Two steps forward, yes. But it’s a change in mindset that is needed.

14

Fiona David | Executive Director of Global Research,
Walk Free Foundation
Modern slavery: A global phenomenon

16

Kevin Hyland | Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, UK
Survivors are speaking. Are we listening?

18

Minh Dang | Survivor Alliance, Executive Director& PhD Student, University of Nottingham
Public procurement: The trillion-dollar missing link

20

Andrew Forrest AO | Chairman, Fortescue Metals Group& Chevaan Daniel | Group Director, The Capital Maharaja
Organisation Limited
Unfinished business: Addressing the victimisation of women and girls
Jacqueline Joudo Larsen | Senior Research Manager,
Walk Free Foundation

Rahima Khartoum holds a photograph of her son,
14 year old trafficking victim Din Mohammad,
July, 2015 in Shamlapur, Bangladesh. Threemonths earlier, Mohammad left his Rohingya
settlement in Bangladesh with a man who told
him he could take him to a good job in Malaysia
for free. He left without telling his parents. Twomonths ago his parents got a call from one of
their son’s friends saying that they were in acamp in Thailand and the traffickers had soldthem, but they had been rescued. They haven’t
heard from anyone since that phone call.
Photo credit: Shazia Rahman/Getty Images

22

Essays13

14

Global Slavery Index 2018

TWO STEPS FORWARD, YES.
BUT IT’S A CHANGE IN MINDSETTHAT IS NEEDED.
Fiona David | Executive Director of Global Research,Walk Free Foundation

In November 2017, a slave auction was broadcast aroundthe world.
CNN journalists travelled to a town not far from Tripoli, Libya andcaptured shocking video footage of the sale of 12 Nigerian men.
This was not an isolated occurrence.

Many African people seeking to migrate via Libya toEurope through irregular channels – either to improve theireconomic prospects or to seek asylum – are falling victim tounthinkable extremes of abuse, including modern slavery.

Since we published the last Global Slavery Index in 2016,
there have been many successes in terms of increased
efforts to address modern slavery.

Increasingly restrictive approaches, applied by theEuropean Union in an effort to curb the flow of migrants
from Libya by returning migrants back to detention centresin that country, have exacerbated the issue.

The 2018 Global Slavery Index confirms that governments
are taking more of the steps we ask of them to respondto modern slavery – strengthening laws, training police,
providing services and shelters to victims, and engaging
with business on supply chain transparency.

Far from being a source of order or security, these detention
centres have proved to be little more than staging pensfor human merchandise subjected to rape, overcrowding,organised extortion, and sale into slavery.

Businesses and governments are increasingly accepting
the reality that when modern slavery occurs in one country,
the direct results will be felt throughout international
supply chains.

While the EU agreed to fund an emergency program ofvoluntary repatriations from Libya’s detention centres in
November 2017,1 by February 2018 there were still at least
700,000 migrants in Libya, some 4,400 of whom were in
immigration detention.2

We are seeing a stronger focus on collaboration andmeasurement as key foundations of truly coordinated,
informed, and impactful responses to modern slavery. The
UN Security Council has made two resolutions on humantrafficking, one in 2018 imposing sanctions for individuals
involved in the Libyan slave-trade.

Furthermore, while the European action has provided amuch-needed emergency response, this has not addressed
the underlying cause of the crisis – failing policies on
migration and refugees.

While this is all progress, the haunting CNN footage ofa slave-auction conducted in 2017 must act as a sharp
reminder that these successes take place against a
backdrop of increasingly extreme and blatant patterns ofmodern slavery.

Essays

Our small steps forward must also be measured against
the reality that we remain, as an international community,
unable to respond quickly and effectively to prevent theatrocities that we know will create a breeding ground forfurther abuses, including slavery.
For example, in 2015, the world was horrified when mass
graves of tortured and murdered Rohingya migrants werediscovered in “death camps” along the Thai–Malaysian
border, to which they had been smuggled.3
These camps were used as staging pensfor Rohingya migrants desperate toleave Myanmar, only to find themselves
subject to extortion, torture, and humantrafficking by the criminals who had been
paid to “help”.

We have to shift from individual to collective approaches tosolving what are truly global problems.
It is unthinkable that in 2018, world leaders have managed
to make global, legally binding agreements on everythingfrom outer space to carriage of goods by sea, but they
have yet to agree on a framework that would enable thesafe movement of people globally. The withdrawal of theUnited States from international discussions about the UN
Global Compacts on Refugees and Migration is a massive
failure of leadership.

It is not enough to simply
blame conflict on those who
hold the weapons. We mustalso apply responsibility tothose who have the power
to influence situations but
choose not to act.

Yet since conclusive evidence began
to emerge in August 2017 of fresh
campaigns of ethnic cleansing of theRohingya, the international community
has done little to act. As nearly 700,000
people escaped burned villages and fled to the shelter of
temporary camps in Bangladesh, UN agencies warnedof the risk of modern slavery in this chaotic and high-risk
environment.4 Disagreement in the UN Security Council
Permanent Membership meant that a binding resolution
was scaled back to a Presidential Statement in December
2017.5 In the absence of any coordinated international
response, some 800,000 people remain living in camps
and shelters built on the mud of Cox Bazar, Bangladesh.
Important questions in our pursuit to end modern slavery
remain. How is it that with all we have in place to respondto modern slavery in 2018, human beings are still being
sold in Libya as “big strong boys for farm work?” Why ismodern slavery still so pervasive around the world? Why
and how is it tolerated in the globalising economy? What
are we missing?

15

Finding solutions to modern slavery
must also be integrally connected toefforts to prevent and end protracted
conflict situations.

It is not enough to simply blame conflicton those who hold the weapons. We mustalso apply responsibility to those whohave the power to influence situations
but choose not to act. As the outgoing
UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights said, “while conflict is perpetrated by criminals…theresponsibility for the continuation of so much pain lies withthe five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
So long as the veto is used by them to block any unity ofaction, when it is needed the most, when it could reduce
the extreme suffering of innocent people, then it is they –the permanent members – who must answer before thevictims.”7
In this regard, France and the UK are to be commended fortheir leadership proposing the five permanent members of
the UN Security Council voluntarily suspend the use of theirveto rights in situations involving mass atrocities.
Millions of victims of conflict, and with them millions ofvictims of modern slavery, are depending on the remaining
permanent members of the Security Council, United States,
China, and Russia to agree to this life saving approach.

The answers are found partly in the ever-present challenges
and failures of implementation.
Laws on paper are worthless without implementation andenforcement. Police training means little if witnesses canbe intimidated and judges can be bought. Or shelters
operating like prisons continue to leave victims of modern
slavery with few, if any, alternatives.
This underscores the enormous value of transparency
and reporting – a commendable feature seen in the
publication of recent audits of police responses in the UK.6
If all governments were genuinely open to transparently
examining the effectiveness of their efforts, we would nothave tens of millions of people in modern slavery.
The answers also lie in deeper examination of drivers ofvulnerability to this crime, not only in matters related topoverty, access and governance found in low-income
countries, but also in the gaping holes in protection thatdeveloped countries create when they enact sweeping
immigration, crime control, or social welfare policies that
undermine their other efforts to stop modern slavery.

A picture taken on June, 2017 shows irregularmigrants being transported to a detention
centre in the Libyan coastal town of Zawiyah,
45 kilometres west of the capital Tripoli, after
their rescue while attempting to reach Europe.
Media and UN reports have confirmed thatlarge numbers of migrants in Libya are being
traded and sold with detention centres being
used as staging posts.
Photo credit: Taha Jawashi/AFP/
Getty Images

16

Global Slavery Index 2018

MODERN SLAVERY:A GLOBAL PHENOMENON
Kevin Hyland | Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner UK

Modern slavery can be found in every corner of our globalised
world. In 2017, the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery
estimated that 40.3 million individuals were living in modern
slavery; with individuals being exploited for the purpose of
sexual exploitation, forced labour, forced marriage, domestic
servitude, and forced criminality.

Advances in data collection have allowed us to betterlook at existing legislation and assess whether they
are inadvertently generating the conditions in which
understand the prevalence and drivers of modern slavery,
exploitation can flourish. Particular cohorts of theregion by region and country by country. Higher rates
of modern slavery have typically been associated withpopulation, such as those working in the “gig economy” orcountries with lower economic wealth, weak rule of law,seasonal migrant workers, may be particularly vulnerable
and those affected by conflict. Whilst
to abuse due to weak labour laws
this remains the case, this year’s
This year’s Global Slavery Index and restrictive immigration policies.
Global Slavery Index highlights
Any legislation, policy, and practicehighlights the significant role that that exacerbate abuse must be
the significant role that more
more economically-developed
economically-developed countries
repealed.
have in perpetuating modern slavery.
countries have in perpetuating
In my role as the UK’s Independent
Despite their relative wealth, modern
modern slavery. Despite their
Anti-Slavery Commissioner, I haveslavery crimes are taking place at anseen just how much can be achieved
relative wealth, modern slavery
alarming rate in these countries andwhen there is political will to tackle
crimes are taking place at anwithin their global supply chains.
modern slavery, and a readiness
Progressive action has been taken by alarming rate in these countries and of government, business, and civil
within their global supply chains. society to work in partnership.
developed nations to combat modern
slavery, such as the introduction of
However, it is also clear that merely
modern slavery legislation, and thishaving modern slavery legislation,is to be welcomed. However, it is clear that critical gaps
without the commitment or resourcing to ensure its effective
remain in the provision of protection for the vulnerable andimplementation and enforcement, is not enough.
in the apprehension of perpetrators.
In 2015, the Modern Slavery Act was brought into force
Whilst new laws to tackle modern slavery are to bein the UK which, with the support of business, included awelcomed, countries also have a responsibility to“Transparency in supply chains” provision. This provision

Essays17

requires businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more
The UK’s current system of support – the National Referral
Mechanism – does not meet the needs of all victims and isthat provide goods and services in the UK to produce ancurrently being reformed. I welcome this. This is a crime thatannual statement explaining what they are doing to tackle
can destroy lives and we have a responsibility to protect
modern slavery within their supply chains. The inclusion ofand support victims to recover from their experiences andthis provision was an important step; however, two years on,
rebuild their lives – regardless of age, gender, or nationality.
corporate response to this requirement remains patchy at
best. In 2017, 43 of the FTSE 100 failed
It is unacceptable that modern
to comply with the basic requirements
slavery continues to exist in a climate
All countries are affected byof this legislation. Even with theof low risk criminality and high profit
modern slavery and therefore alllegislation, the UK has a long way toreward, making it the crime of choice
have a responsibility to bring an
go to in ensuring that UK businesses
for criminals, who for too long haveare slavery-free.
end to this scourge. Collaborative operated with impunity across theaction at the local, national, and UK and beyond.
The introduction of the Modern Slavery
All countries are affected by modern
Act has undoubtedly served to raiseinternational level is required toawareness of modern slavery, resulting address the conditions which make slavery and therefore all have a
responsibility to bring an end to thisin year-on-year increases in theindividuals vulnerable to abuse.
scourge. Collaborative action at the
number of victims of modern slavery
local, national, and international
being identified. There is greaterlevel
isrequiredtoaddressthe conditions which makeunderstanding of the various forms of modern slavery andindividuals
vulnerable
toabuse.
the prevalence of British nationals falling victim to this crime.
However, greater awareness is just a starting point; we must
Through research such as this Global Slavery Index, we
ensure that where cases are identified they are met with ahave a greater understanding of modern slavery across theglobe. We know what the problem is, let’s now act.
robust, professional response.

Elvira, 50, trafficked from the Philippines
into domestic slavery in the UK“When my husband got sick, I went to workin Qatar so I could send money for medicine
back home. But the family were cheating meout of my salary. They said I could go home
if I went to work for one of the sisters in
London. She lived near Harrods. She’d shoutat me, calling me stupid, and made me sleepon the floor by her bed. She fed me a single
piece of bread and cup of tea for the wholeday. I felt like I was in prison.”
Photo credit: Hazel Thompson for
The Guardian

18

Global Slavery Index 2018SURVIVORS ARE SPEAKING.
ARE WE LISTENING?
Minh Dang | Survivor Alliance, Executive Director & PhD Student, University of Nottingham

Survivors of slavery and human trafficking regularly receive
invitations to share their experience, whether by the media,
at congressional hearings or at conferences. When theorganisers are asked to expand on the nature of theirrequests, the typical response is: “We would love to hear
your personal story, how you overcame it, and we want ouraudience to leave inspired.” The clear assumption in theserequests is that survivors will speak about their traumatic
experiences of slavery.

The problem

Deepening our understanding

The presumptive role in these requests is for survivors
to provide a face to the issue and to make it real for theaudience. As some of the best interpreters of modern
slavery in the broadest sense, survivors’ insights arewasted when they are restricted to telling personal stories.
Survivors become tokenized when there is only one survivor
invited to participate in an event and asked to “speak forall” survivors. Treated as an afterthought, most anti-slavery
efforts assume that there are no survivors in the room, or
the voices and agendas of survivors are not critical to theagenda of an event, publication, or exhibit.

Survivors are placed in an exasperating predicament: tobe heard in limited ways, with little to no compensation,or to be excluded from important conversations that affecttheir lives. Similar to the weariness that people of colour
experience when asked to educate white people about
racism, survivors of slavery are weary of being asked
to share traumatic stories. What is implied is that their“personal story” is purely a story of horror and atrocity,and other important aspects of their identities are negated.

Survivors are also undervalued through a widespreadassumption that they will volunteer their time and expertise.
They are regularly unpaid for their contributions or evenrequired to pay out of pocket for travel expenses. Theirwork products are not treated with the same considerations
normally given to intellectual property, such as acquiringconsent for publication or reuse.

Many survivors understand the benefit of sharing some
aspects of our story to raise awareness; however, ourexperience in slavery is not the only, nor the primary,
topic that we want to discuss. We want to talk about policychange. We want to design social service programs andlead our own organisations and programs. We want tobuild grassroots solutions and to sustain ourselves. Like
all humans, we want self-determination and autonomy,
coupled with interdependence and community support.

Essays19›› Invite a survivor to join your Board of Directors or an
Advisory Board.
›› Invite survivors to review and provide input on programplans, training curricula, and media campaigns.
›› Involve survivors in creating research questions andmeasurement variables.
››
Develop employment opportunities for survivors
As such, many survivors engaged in anti-slavery efforts
within your organisation and provide support for their
have full-time jobs to make ends meet, support families,
success. These include discussing confidentiality,and pay off debt. Many of us desire to be actively engaged
making workplace and cultural norms explicit, andin the anti-slavery movement but we do not have theif necessary, training other staff members on how
capacity to volunteer our time. Thus, our request for
to engage.
compensation and reimbursement›› of expenses is the same as any otherI nvest in survivor leadership
Many survivors understand theprograms such as the National
professional.
benefitofsharing
some
aspects
Survivor Network8 in the United
While at times there are occasional legal
States, Utthan9 in India, and a newof our story to raise awareness;or logistical difficulties to compensatinginternational organisation that I am
survivors, these challenges are not however, our experience in slavery
launching, the Survivor Alliance.10
insurmountable. To lay it out plainly,
is not the only, nor the primary,here are some reasons why survivors
The Survivor Alliance unites andtopic that we want to discuss.
need and should be compensated:
empowers survivors of slavery aroundWe want to talk about
the world. Incubated in the University›› A request to speak, present, orof Nottingham’s Rights Lab,11 it focusespolicy change.
give feedback on documents
on developing a global network of
is a request for expert input
trained survivor leaders. In addition toor consultation. It is common to pay consulting fees
empowering survivor voices in the anti-slavery movement,
to any subject matter expert.
the Survivor Alliance shifts the focus from the moment of›› A request to appear in a venue that is away from theemancipation and the immediate aftermath, to the longsurvivor’s home or workplace involves an additional
journey of (re)building a life in freedom.
travel expense that the survivor likely cannot incur.
Until we actively support the development of survivor›› To tend to health and self-care needs, pre-, post-, andleaders, there will be a dearth of such leaders to call on toduring involvement in anti-slavery efforts, additional
support anti-slavery efforts. We believe the wider movement
costs are incurred.
has a moral obligation to help make this happen.
›› Survivors must often use vacation or unpaid time
The more successful our anti-slavery efforts become, theto participate in projects and may need to makemore survivors will live among us. Survivors will demandalternative child care arrangements.
a prosperous life and the ability to sustain our freedom.
Our personal experiences include our identities as parents,
scholars, business and NGO leaders, activists, artists,
lawyers, and so much more. Our experiences in slavery
inform our anti-slavery efforts, but we are people, just likeyou. We are people who seek access to a healthy, safe, andsecure life for ourselves and our communities.

The solution

Freedom is more than the absence of slavery.

Going forward, to be more inclusive and to ensure thatsurvivors can contribute in meaningful ways, it is time
for the anti-slavery movement to focus on developing
and deepening opportunities for survivors that are notcentred around sharing their trauma narrative, and toprovide compensation for their time, travel, and expertise.
I recommend the following actions:

It is imperative that our movement integrate survivors as
equal members of our community. We are here to buildwith you. When we knock on your door, please invite us
in. We do not want our words to continue to fall on deaf
ears, but rest assured, we will not be silent.

›› Add a line item to your budget for survivor participationand develop a fundraising plan to support it.
›› If you feel unsure about how to incorporate survivors,
hire a veteran survivor leader to conduct anassessment and make recommendations.
›› If there are no existing survivor groups in your area,
work with allied organisations to recruit people who
exited slavery long before it became the social issueof the moment.
›› Request anonymous survivor input through surveys
of program participants. Offer gift cards in exchange
for participation.

Minh Dang discusses potential
survivor-informed research projects
with Valentine Nkoyo, Director of
Mojatu Foundation and Survivor
Alliance Membership Coordinator,
and Julie McGarry, University of
Nottingham Associate Professor of
Medicine and Health Sciences.
Photo credit: University of Nottingham

20

Global Slavery Index 2018

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT:THE TRILLION-DOLLAR MISSING LINK
Andrew Forrest AO | Chairman, Fortescue Metals Group& Chevaan Daniel | Group Director, The Capital Maharaja Organisation Limited

No one speaks in favour of modern slavery, and slavery
has no real friends. At best, it can be said that slavery has
temporary acquaintances, people who rely on slavery forshort term profit.

No country or business can build its future on slavery.
Indeed, slavery thwarts economic empowerment and puts
a ceiling on growth.
All sides of politics are unified behind this point, a rarity
in today’s fractured policy landscape. Likewise, businesshas led its own reform and has shown its willingness towork with government in joint endeavours. The leaders of
all faiths have come together and shared their common
abhorrence of slavery in their teachings.
Still, despite this leadership many continue to benefit
from this often invisible crime, or resign themselves to
accepting modern slavery as an inevitability.
Modern slavery is a human condition of our own making
which can be ended by concerted action. It is a multi-billion
dollar transnational criminal business which, on any one
given day in 2016, ensnared 40.3 million people.

While some governments are setting reporting requirements
for corporations, there are a paucity of measures directed atminimising the risks of modern slavery in public procurementin these policy responses. Governments need to get theirhouses in order.
This is a failure of leadership and an insult to business, which
is tasked with meeting high expectations by policy makers
who fail to measure themselves to the same standards.
Continued inaction by governments exposes them toenormous reputational risk and economic consequences.
Thankfully, there are green shoots of progress. This year’s
Global Slavery Index finds 36 countries are taking steps toinvestigate forced labour in business or public supply chains,up from just four countries in 2016. Of the 36 countries, 25
are taking steps on government procurement. And there is
no reason why the figure can’t be higher.

The scale of this truly global and abhorrent practice isstaggering and will not be rectified until there is significant
cooperation between business and government. One of thefirst areas to address is rooting out slavery where it exists insupply chains, be they of major businesses or governments.

The countries which collaborate beyond their own borders
to adopt regional approaches to stamp out slavery will
be rewarded with stronger societies, robust trade, andsustainable growth. Those that take steps to clean up
labour issues at home will send the best possible signals
to the investment world.

Many governments are the biggest buyers of goods andservices in their countries. Public procurement represents,
on average, around 12 percent of a country’s GDP and it
is estimated to be in the order of the GDP which equals to
US$1.6 trillion worldwide.

For investment destinations that are both accountable andattractive, there is almost no shortage of capital available.
As more is learned about slavery, and how to measure it,
investors will increasingly steer clear of opportunities that

Essays21

come with exposure to slavery risk. Business leaders are
acutely aware of the attractiveness of certain investment
destinations and often labour issues and other social
problems are serious deterrents to new ventures.

Our analysis found G20 countries are collectively importingat least US$354 billion worth of at-risk products annually– for example seafood from Thailand, electronics from
Malaysia, or coal from North Korea.

In the short-term, slavery may fill criminals’ pockets withillegal profits, but in the long-term, the national profits of acountry that allows slavery to thrive will be dragged down.
Economic empowerment is the key to long-term growthand so it is no surprise that slavery, more than many otherfactors, cruels sustainable development.

Business too has a critical role to play here. The old paradigm
of name and shame has not delivered comprehensive
reform, rather it has often discouraged businesses fromlooking too closely in case they discover abuses.

As scrutiny increases down the longtail of multi-national companies’ supply
chains, countries that continue to allow
modern slavery within their borders areat ever increasing risk of tarnishing theirreputation and losing out on trade.
But slavery is not just a problem fordeveloping countries seeking investment.

We need a paradigm shift to encourage businesses toseek out abuses in their supply chains,
and reward leaders who take on the
We need a paradigm shift responsibility and challenge of addressing
to encourage businesses modern slavery. We need to celebrate thediscovery of slavery as the first step toto seek out abuses in
remedy the problem and empower thosetheir supply chains, and afflicted. This will drive businesses toreward leaders who take ensure they are not enabling this crime.

on the responsibility andchallenge of addressing
modern slavery.

The great challenge with modern slavery
is that not only is it hidden within thedepths of criminal networks that aretrafficking people for exploitation, butmodern slavery also occurs where mainstream industries
meet informal economies.
Slavery exists in all corners of the planet and touches us
all through trade and consumer choices.

The Walk Free Foundation has engaged with the G20
process to ensure that the countries responsible for 80
percent of the world’s economic activity take responsibility
The decision of the G20 in Germany in 2017 to prioritise
the issue of modern slavery and develop policy responses
was a huge step forward. It is now time for each of thosecountries to act.
We are encouraged by developments in G20 countries
including Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States on public
procurement. But, as the 2018 Global Slavery Index finds,
there is still a long way to go.

Investors are more alert to this issue thanever before and are increasingly demanding
businesses act with impact. Some of thelargest institutional investors in the world
are telling major corporations to improvetheir social footprint or face losing out on billions of dollars
of investment.
True business leaders know that creating sustainablesupply chains can contribute positively towards growth,
improve competition, provide job opportunities, and bringfamilies out of poverty. This is a sustainable business model.
By providing decent work or demanding their suppliersand contractors do, companies are investing in the futuresof communities. Profits and purpose are not mutually
exclusive. In the long term, everyone loses out from slavery.
We have a tremendous opportunity to capitalise on the
progress made and the commitment of so many to end themisery of 40.3 million of our fellow human beings.
It is an opportunity we must not let slip.

Businesses and governments in G20 countries areimporting masses of products that come with significant
risks of being produced using modern slavery.

Yum, 29, sold from Cambodia on to a Thai fishing boat
“One of my friends said he and a few others were leaving to findwork. The next day we got a taxi and headed for Thailand. A man
offered us £150 to work on a construction site, but drove us to a busy
sea port instead. We sailed for days before they told us we’d beensold to the Thais to work as fishermen. After nine months at sea, I
knew I had to escape. Now I have a newborn baby, a wife and noprospects of work. Maybe I will try to find work again in Thailand”
Photograph credit: George Nickels for The Guardian22

Global Slavery Index 2018

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:ADDRESSING THE VICTIMISATIONOF WOMEN AND GIRLS
Jacqueline Joudo Larsen | Senior Research Manager, Walk Free Foundation

Although modern slavery occurs in every corner of the
globe and affects many regardless of race, gender, religion,and socio-economic status, females are disproportionately
affected. Nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of modern
slavery’s victims are women and girls.12 This varies dependingon the form of slavery but, notably, there are more female
than male victims across all forms of modern slavery, except
for state-imposed forced labour. The 2017 Global Estimatesof Modern Slavery revealed that women and girls account for
99 percent of victims of forced labour in the commercial sex
industry, 58 percent in other sectors (for example, domesticwork), 40 percent of victims of forced labour imposed bystate authorities, and 84 percent of victims of forced marriage.

There are many examples of women in forced labour aroundthe globe. Women are trafficked from Nigeria to southern
and western Europe, or from Malaysia to Australia, forcommercial sexual exploitation.13 Large numbers of womentravel from Southeast Asia to the Middle East for domestic
work only to face extreme exploitation on arrival. Many
more victims are exploited closer to home. For example,
Ugandan women and girls are trafficked to South Africa
and the Middle East where they often end up exploited indomestic work or the sex industry.14 Within the Caribbean
region, women are trafficked from Guyana and Jamaica toneighbouring nations such as Antigua and Barbuda.15
Some forms of modern slavery, such as forced marriage,
can be difficult to parse out from cultural practice.
Forced marriages occur in both developing and developed

nations, with women and girls being forced to marry for manyreasons, some of which are closely linked to longstanding
cultural practices and understandings of gender roles, whileothers reflect far more pragmatic economic reasons relating
to income generation and alleviating poverty. In some partsof the world, young girls and women are forced to marry inexchange for payment to their families, the cancellation ofdebt, to settle family disputes, or to secure another person’s
entry into the country. In some societies, a woman can still
be inherited by the brother of her deceased husband andforced marriages may occur when a rapist is permitted toescape criminal sanctions by marrying the victim, usuallywith the consent of her family. In countries with significant
levels of conflict, women are abducted by armed groups
and forced to marry fighters.

Essays23

Of course, slavery does not spare men and boys. Men areright to prevent wives from working, no legal protection
more likely than women to be exploited by the state and infrom domestic violence, exemption from prosecution formany industries, such as agriculture, mining, and construction.
rapists if they are married to, or marry, their victim.19 The
While a focus on female victims should not come at thenumerous gaps in legal protection for women and girls must
expense of male victims, who must also be supported andbe addressed to help break the cycle of inequality.
empowered, an understanding of the gender differences inFundamentally, modern slavery cannot be addressed
victimisation can shed light on where prevention and victim
in isolation. It is both a symptom and a cause, and in
identification efforts should start. Findings from the Global
tackling other fundamental rights issues
Estimates of Modern Slavery reflect highly
through the Sustainable Development
gendered patterns of employment and
Goal (SDG’s) – eliminating all forms ofThe
disparitybegs
themigration that see more women than men
violence against all women and girls in
employed in informal and unregulated question: what makes womenpublic and private spheres, including
sectors – areas of work where heightened
and girls more vulnerable
trafficking and sexual and other types
vulnerability to abuse and exploitation has
to modern slavery? Ourof exploitation (SDG 5.2), eliminating all
been well-documented.
harmful practices, such as child, early,
research points to the
The disparity begs the question: what
relevance of broader patterns and forced marriage and female genital
makes women and girls more vulnerable
mutilation (SDG 5.3), ending abuse,of human rights abuses that exploitation, and trafficking of children
to modern slavery? Our researchdisproportionately affectpoints to the relevance of broader(SDG 16.2), and facilitating orderly,
patterns of human rights abuses thatsafe, and responsible migration andwomen and girls.
disproportionately affect women andmobility of people, including throughgirls, including domestic and sexual
implementation of planned and wellviolence and discriminatory beliefs and practices aroundmanaged migration policies (SDG 10.7) – we will reduce theaccess to property, education, and even citizenship.
vulnerability of women and girls to modern slavery. Small
Globally, women are more likely than men to live in extreme
steps in the right direction are being taken in some regions.
poverty and to report food insecurity. In turn, this impacts
In the forced marriage space, raising community awareness
access to education with data revealing those living in pooron the dangers of forced marriage, human rights, and theimportance of education for girls in bridging the inequality
households have higher rates of illiteracy, and of those,
women in poor households are the most disadvantaged ofgap have shown some progress in combating modern
all.16 Lack of education restricts employment opportunities
slavery.20 Front-line organisations such as the Freedom
for women and globally, women’s labour force participation
Fund and their local partners have made significant inroads
is 31 percentage points below that of men.17 In light of this,
into addressing the slavery of women and girls by adopting
it comes as no surprise that women have access to fewera wraparound approach that tackles the root causes.21
economic resources than men, for example, they makeAt the heart of these issues lie traditions and systems
up just 13 percent of agricultural landowners across thethat perpetuate and propagate the discrimination andglobe.18 Without access to education, better employment
exploitation of women. In his 2018 International Women’s
opportunities, and economic resources, women are at
Day address, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres
greater risk of modern slavery.
noted that the push for gender equality is “…the unfinishedCultural practices and values, family structures, lack ofbusiness of our time.”22 In the wave of activism that has
autonomy, few employment opportunities, and access topropelled the #MeToo and #TimesUp campaigns acrosseducation all play a part in creating risks that impact women
the globe, there is no better time to tackle the root causesof vulnerability among women and girls.
and girls more than they do men and boys. When a decision
is made to send a son to school and a daughter into thefields or to marry, their life outcomes diverge substantially.
Although in many instances forced or child marriages are
believed to be the best way to secure a daughter’s future,
Anita, 15, forced into child marriage in Kenya.
there are significant health consequences. Girls who aremarried young are at higher risk of contracting sexually“I was out grazing the cows when my fathertransmitted diseases, obstetric fistulas, and death during
said it was time to get married. I was wokenchildbirth. Such marriages place women and girls at greater
up early and circumcised. The elders said therisk of being subjected to other forms of exploitation,
man was to be my only husband. He was 55. I
including sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, and otherwas very confused. I was only 10. Nine months
forms of forced labour. For girls who are married young,later, because I had not given him a baby,
education moves even further out of reach.
he began tasking me with the difficult jobs. I
decided I had to escape – he beat me so hard
Unequal risk for men and women is not only the result
my leg wouldn’t stop bleeding. I was taken inof cultural practices and economic decision-making.
by the Catholic Sisters and started school in
Discriminatory legislative practices also exacerbate the2013. I hope to be a doctor.”disadvantaged position of women and girls; these include
unequal inheritance rights, husbands having the legal

Photo credit: Kate Holt for The Guardian

24

Global Slavery Index 201803 GLOBAL

FINDINGS
26

Global Findings
What does the data tell us about modern slavery?
Key trends
Comparability of the prevalence estimates to the previous
Global Slavery Index
What are governments doing to address modern slavery?

A picture taken in November, 2017 shows African migrants
sitting in a packed room with their beds and blankets, at
the Tariq Al-Matar detention centre on the outskirts of
the Libyan capital Tripoli. These detention centres centres
have been used as staging pens for human trafficking.
Photo credit: Taha Jawashi/AFP/Getty Images

27
30
32
40

Global Findings

25

26

Global Slavery Index 2018

GLOBAL FINDINGS
It is a confronting reality that even in the present day, men, women andchildren all over the world remain victims of modern slavery. They are bought
and sold in public markets, forced to marry against their will and provide
labour under the guise of “marriage,” forced to work inside clandestine
factories on the promise of a salary that is often withheld, or on fishing boats
where men and boys toil under threats of violence. They are forced to workon construction sites, in stores, on farms, or in homes as maids. Labour
extracted through force, coercion, or threats produces some of the food weeat, the clothes we wear, and the footballs we kick. The minerals that men,
women, and children have been made to extract from mines find their way
into cosmetics, electronics, and cars, among many other products.

This is modern slavery. It is widespread and pervasive, often
understanding of what is driving prevalence. For thisunacknowledged, and its extent was previously believed
reason, the national prevalence estimates are analysedin the context of results of the Vulnerability Model, which
to be unknowable. In 2017, the Walk Free Foundation andprovides important context for understanding the national
the International Labour Organization (ILO), together withresults. See p.156 for full data table.
the International Organization for Migration(IOM), developed the Global Estimates ofIn this chapter, we also consider theModern Slavery, which provides the best
important issue of government responses toModern slavery is aavailable data and information about themodern slavery. The Government Response
crime that affects all
scale and regional distribution of modern
Index provides a comparable measure ofcountries globally,slavery. These estimates provide the starting
the steps being taken by 181 countries
point for this report, the Global Slavery Index.
including, perhaps
across 104 indicators of good practice. An
The national estimates presented here wereanalysis of these findings confirms thatsurprisingly, highly
calculated by the Walk Free Foundation
while there has been important progressdeveloped countries.
on the basis of a predictive model thatmade since the publication of the lastaccounted for individual and country-level
Global Slavery Index in 2016, there are stillrisk factors and resulting prevalence estimates were thencritical gaps, and responses to them need to be developed.
adjusted to ensure regional totals were aligned with the
See p.192 for full data table.
regional totals in the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery.
Overall, our findings confirm that modern slavery remains
An analysis of the national estimates in this Global Slavery
a critical issue for all countries. Just as responding toIndex confirms that modern slavery is a crime that affects
environmental concerns cannot be the task of one country
all countries globally, including, perhaps surprisingly,
alone, responding to modern slavery is a challenge thathighly developed countries. While an understanding of
requires commitment and effort from all countries.
prevalence is critical to formulating sound policy responses
to modern slavery, equally important is building ourGlobal Findings

27

Police inspect a crime scene in Jakarta 2017, following
the arrest of suspects involved in human trafficking fromIndonesia to the Middle East via Malaysia.
Photo credit: Dasril Roszandi/Nur Photo via Getty Images.

What does the data tell us aboutmodern slavery?
It is widely acknowledged that measuring modern slavery isa difficult undertaking, not least because no single source
provides suitable and reliable data on all forms of modern
slavery. In developing the Global Estimates of Modern
Slavery, the Walk Free Foundation and the ILO adopted
a methodology that combined survey research involving
face-to-face interviews with more than 71,000 people in
53 local languages with administrative data on victims of
trafficking who had been assisted by the IOM. An estimateof forced labour imposed by state authorities was derived
from validated sources and systematic review of commentsfrom the ILO supervisory bodies with regard to the ILO
Conventions on forced labour.
An estimated 40.3 million men, women, and children
were victims of modern slavery on any given day in 2016.1
Of these, 24.9 million people were in forced labour and15.4 million people were living in a forced marriage.

Women and girls are vastly over-represented, making up
71 percent of victims. Modern slavery is most prevalent in
Africa, followed by the Asia and the Pacific region.
Although these are the most reliable estimates ofmodern slavery to date, we know they are conservative
as significant gaps in data remain. The current Global
Estimates do not cover all forms of modern slavery; forexample, organ trafficking, child soldiers, or child marriagethat could also constitute forced marriage are not able tobe adequately measured at this time. Further, at a broad
regional level there is high confidence in the estimates inall but one of the five regions. Estimates of modern slavery
in the Arab States are affected by substantial gaps in theavailable data.2 Given this is a region that hosts 17.6 million
migrant workers,3 representing more than one-tenth of
all migrant workers in the world and one in three workers
in the Arab States, and one in which forced marriage isreportedly widespread, the current estimate is undoubtedly
a significant underestimate.

28

Global Slavery Index 2018

NOTE ON RECRUITMENT OF CHILDREN BY ARMED FORCES& ORGAN TRAFFICKING
Conceptually, the practices of recruiting child soldiers and trafficking persons for removal of their organs fall under
the concept of modern slavery. Recruitment of children by armed forces and groups is expressly prohibited by various
treaties,4 while the UN Trafficking Protocol specifically designates organ removal as a form of exploitation associatedwith the crime of trafficking in persons.5 Unfortunately, due to the limits of existing data, it was not possible for the Global
Estimates of Modern Slavery to measure and include the scale of trafficking for organ removal or the recruitment childsoldiers. Accordingly, the estimates in this Global Slavery Index do not capture these practices.
This, however, should not be taken as an indication of diminished importance of these forms of modern slavery. The following
sections provide a brief overview of the existing state of knowledge on both trafficking for organ removal and recruitmentof child soldiers.

Trafficking in persons for organ removal

Recruitment of children by armed forces

While there is only limited information compiled globallyon trafficking persons for the purpose of organ removal, it
is possible to get some insight by looking at the broader
statistics on organ transplants. An estimated 126,670 solidorgan transplants were performed worldwide in 2015.6 The
World Health Organization (WHO) conservatively estimatesthat the illegal organ trade comprises approximately 10
percent of global transplant activity.7 Revenue from theillegal trade is estimated to range between US$840
million and US$1.7 billion.8 The black market organ trade
has been documented in countries as diverse as India,
Pakistan, Kosovo, and the Philippines.9 What is unclear isthe extent to which coercion is being applied, and in whatcircumstances. It is, however, certain that unscrupulous
traffickers and brokers target vulnerable people, including
irregular migrants and refugees on the move.10

The use of children in armed conflicts is clearly and directly
linked to the trafficking and sale of children and is therefore
globally recognised as a form of modern slavery.17 Due tothe hidden nature of this crime, scholars have argued in
the past that “the total number of child soldiers in eachcountry, let alone the global figure, is not only unknown, but
unknowable.”18 Similarly, it is noted in the Global Estimatesof Modern Slavery that some forms of modern slavery which
did not involve elements of forced labour (such as organ
trafficking) are not captured due to a lack of reliable data.19

It appears from the limited number of cases that have been
investigated and prosecuted that international brokers arepivotal to the series of transactions involved in this crime,
particularly in terms of receiving the highest profits.11 It
is usually these brokers who fix the price for the illegaltransplant, as well as the “fee” for the organ supplier,dependent on the broker’s insight into the “market” andthe circumstances of the recipients.12
Poverty and corruption are two of the principal underlying
factors in organ trafficking. Sellers give up their organs
out of economic necessity and, for most buyers, who may
have been waiting on legitimate transplant lists for months,
desperation and frustration usually push them to commit
the illegal act.13 In some parts of India, poor people use
their kidneys as collateral for money lenders. Researchers
have documented instances of kidneys sourced from the“kidney belt” region of southern India sold to clients in Sri
Lanka, the Gulf States, the UK, and the US.14
Developed countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, andthe UK receive organs from most of the world’s developing
countries, including India, China, the Philippines, andPakistan.15 Organ transplants tend to be carried out more
in wealthy countries due to their better economic conditions
and technological capabilities. Sale of organs is illegal inmany developing countries, with the exception of Iranwhere paid donation is permitted but strictly regulated.16

One obvious but often overlooked prerequisite for the
involvement of children in armed conflicts is the presence
and extent of conflict around the world. That is, whenconflicts persist along with the presence of armed groups
open to child involvement, then there continue to be
child soldiers.20 Additionally, the extraordinary complexity
surrounding the world’s current conflicts has reportedly
contributed to an increase in the number of children at risk.21
Beyond those necessary conditions, children may become
involved in armed conflicts for a host of interrelated reasons.
Some of the specific factors that influence child involvement
in conflict include physical and food security, family andpeer networks (children may be heavily influenced by preexisting networks, such as where other family members
have joined armed forces), financial incentives, coercion,
status, and cultural and religious identity.22
Although there are no reliable estimates on the number ofchildren involved in armed conflicts, the UN provides some
information on documented cases of children involved inarmed conflict. In 2016, there were globally at least 4,000
instances of children recruited and used in armed conflictby government forces and more than 11,500 such instancesby non-state armed groups, notably in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America.23 This reflects cases recorded in Afghanistan, theCentral African Republic, Colombia, Democratic Republicof the Congo (DRC), Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Myanmar,
Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and the Philippines.24

Global Findings

Notwithstanding these critical data gaps, the 2018 Global
Slavery Index presents national-level estimates for 167
countries based on the proportion of the population that is
estimated to be in some form of modern slavery.
The 10 countries with the highest prevalence of modern
slavery are (Figure 1):
1 / North Korea
2 / Eritrea
3 / Burundi
4 / the Central African Republic
5 / Afghanistan

6 / Mauritania
7 / South Sudan
8 / Pakistan
9 / Cambodia
10 / IranAn analysis of the ten countries with highest prevalenceindicates a connection between modern slavery andtwo major external drivers- highly repressive regimes
and conflict. As data in this Global Slavery Index confirm,
several of these countries– the Central African Republic,Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Pakistan – also score above
90 percent in the Vulnerability Model, which measuressystemic, individual, and environmental risk factors in 167
countries. The interplay between modern slavery and risk
factors is discussed further below.
Despite a change in methodology, Mauritania andCambodia remained in the top 10 in 2018. Mauritania
continues to host a high proportion of people living

29

in modern slavery. The national survey confirmed
the existence of forced marriage and forced labour.
Forced labour was found to occur in different sectors,
to both males and females across different age groups
and geographic regions. The practice is entrenched in
Mauritanian society with slave status being inherited, anddeeply rooted in social castes and the wider social system.
Those owned by masters often have no freedom to own
land, cannot claim dowries from their marriages nor inherit
property or possessions from their families.25 Despite
improvements to legislation in 2015, which strengthens theprovisions on slavery, allows third parties to bring cases onbehalf of slavery victims, and establishes special tribunals toinvestigate slavery crimes,26 progress in Mauritania remains
slow. There are reports that police and the judiciary are
reluctant to implement the new legislation and that several
cases of slavery have been reclassified as lesser crimes,
although the ILO Committee of Experts notes some positive
steps in recent times.27 In Cambodia, men, women, andchildren are known to be exploited in various forms ofmodern slavery – including forced labour, debt bondage
and forced marriage. While the prevalence of forced sexual
exploitation and forced begging in the country has beenreported previously, the national survey also pointed toforced labour in manufacturing, farming, construction anddomestic work. In Cambodia, the government has been slow
to improve their response to modern slavery.

FIGURE 1
Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country (noting 10 countries with highest prevalence,
estimated victims per 1,000 population)

4. The Central African
Republic, 22.3
1. North Korea, 104.6

6. Mauritania, 21.4

5. Afghanistan, 22.2

3. Burundi, 40

10. Iran, 16.2

8. Pakistan, 16.8

2. Eritrea, 93

9. Cambodia, 16.8

7. South Sudan, 20.5

Rank. Country name, Prevalence score
high

low

For full data tables see p.178

30

Global Slavery Index 2018

Key trends
Three main trends emerge from the Global Slavery Index national estimates of modern slavery.

First:
Many of the countries with the highest estimated levelsof prevalence are marked by conflict – Eritrea, Burundi,
Central African Republic, Afghanistan, South Sudan, andPakistan all appear among the 10 countries with highest
prevalence. The role that conflict plays in compounding
vulnerability to slavery is widely recognised and finds support
in an assessment of vulnerability at the national level. In
the Walk Free Foundation’s assessment of vulnerability
across five dimensions – governance issues, lack of basic
needs, inequality, disenfranchised groups, and effects ofconflict – countries with high vulnerability due to effects ofconflict generally have higher vulnerability scores acrossthe remaining four dimensions. This is not surprising given
the disruption to, and often complete dismantling of, therule of law, as well as damage to critical infrastructure andlimited access to education, health care, and food and water
as a result of conflict. Similarly, the Walk Free Foundation’s
government response data highlight the disruption causedby conflict to government functions. Eritrea, Central African
Republic, Pakistan, and Iran all score lowly on government
responses, while Afghanistan and South Sudan were
excluded from the government response assessment thisyear due to significant ongoing conflict.

Second:The improved measurement of state-imposed forced
labour reveals the substantial impact this form of slavery
has on populations. The three countries with highest
prevalence in the Global Slavery Index – North Korea,
Eritrea, and Burundi – stand out as having a very highprevalence of state-imposed forced labour. State-imposed
forced labour includes citizens recruited by their stateauthorities to participate in agriculture or construction workfor purposes of economic development, young military
conscripts forced to perform work that is not of militarynature, those forced to perform communal services thatwere not decided upon at the community level and do
not benefit them, or prisoners forced to work against theirwill.28 In North Korea, one in 10 people are in modern slavery
with the vast majority being forced to work by the state.
See Spotlight on North Korea at p.34 for further analysis
on this country.

Governments that regularly impose forced labour on
their citizens perform poorly across other measures ofvulnerability. For example, they tend to be more autocratic,
are believed to have lower quality policy and regulations,perform below the global average in ensuring access tonecessities such as food and water and health care, andtypically do not protect the rights of highly discriminatedgroups in the broader population. More specifically,
the presence of state-imposed forced labour undermines atbest, and at worst renders meaningless, any government
response to modern slavery. North Korea has the weakest
response to modern slavery globally due to the state’srole in forced labour both within North Korea and of North
Koreans abroad. The abuse of civic duties in Burundi andconscription in Eritrea also threatens any concrete actions
these governments may be taking.

Third:The prevalence of modern slavery in highly developed,
high income countries is higher than previously
understood. This learning reflects improvements in themethodology, in particular, the ability to systematicallycount cases at the point of exploitation which was madepossible with a substantially larger number of surveys. For
example, if an Indian man reported being exploited in theconstruction sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), thatcase was attributed to the UAE. In the five-year reference
period for the estimates, while surveys were conducted in
48 countries, men, women, and children were reported tohave been exploited in 79 countries. This results in higher
estimates in countries such as the United States, Australia,
United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands, andseveral other European nations.
While these findings emphasise the responsibility ofhighly developed countries to act, the estimates reveal
only part of the picture. It is important to note thatthe governments in several of these countries – theNetherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States,
Sweden, Belgium, Croatia, Spain, Norway, Portugal, andMontenegro – are also taking the most action to respondto modern slavery.

Global Findings

31

These countries also tend to have lower vulnerability scores
action to respond to modern slavery. Countries including
across all measures, which reflects effective governance
Qatar, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have taken
across a broad range of areas and, in particular, a strong
limited action despite high levels of resources (see Figure 4,
capacity to provide protections for vulnerable subgroupsp.43). These countries tend to perform relatively wellin comparison with other countries in the region onand ensure access to necessities such as food and water.
overall vulnerability scores given their greater capacity
Collectively, these factors mitigate risks of enslavement
to address areas of critical need for citizens. However,for citizens. However, increased prevalence of modern
slavery among these countries suggests that critical gaps
there remain gaps in protections for migrant populations,remain around the implementation of existing legislation
often the most vulnerable groups to modern slavery inand policies and in tackling the root causes
these countries. Even a seemingly strongof exploitation. It is very likely that this
response is undermined where there arereflects the reality that, even in countries
subgroups of people who suffer high levels
Countries including
with seemingly strong systems, there areof discrimination, as they are likely to be
Qatar, Singapore,gaps in protections, with certain groups“left behind” where responses to slavery
Saudi Arabia, and thesuch as irregular migrants, the homeless,are concerned. This can be linked to a lack
UAE have taken limited of legal status in a country, for example,
or minorities subject to intense andwidespread discrimination and typicallyaction despite high levels women in Saudi Arabia, domestic workers
less able to access protection. In Europe,
who fall outside the protection of labourof resources.
which has had a very strong response tolaws in most Gulf countries, or the statelessmodern slavery, there has been a tightening
hill tribes of Thailand and the Rohingya
of migration policy and a reduction in the protections
people of Myanmar, the latter of whom are at the center ofthe world’s fastest growing refugee crisis.29
available to migrants in recent years. While in part this isa response to the current refugee and migrant crisis, thisThe 10 countries with the largest estimated absolutealso renders these individuals more vulnerable to modern
numbers of people in modern slavery include some of theslavery. Similar approaches have also been adopted in theworld’s most populous.30 Collectively, these 10 countries
US and Australia.
– India, China, Pakistan, North Korea, Nigeria, Iran,On the other hand, when our assessment of government
Indonesia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Russia, andresponses is correlated against GDP (PPP) per capita, wethe Philippines – account for 60 percent of people living infind that some high-income countries have taken limited
modern slavery and over half the world’s population.
FIGURE 2
Vulnerability to modern slavery by country (noting 10 countries with highest average vulnerability score)

3. Afghanistan, 93.9%
4. Syria, 92.3%
10. Chad, 74.9%

9. Iraq, 85.7%
1. The Central African
Republic, 100%
5. Democratic Republicof the Congo, 91.7%

8. Yemen, 86.4%
6. Somalia, 89.5%
7. Sudan, 87.4%
2. South Sudan, 94.7%

Rank. Country name, Vulnerability percentage
high

low

For full data tables see p.156

32

Global Slavery Index 2018

Comparability of the prevalence
estimates to the previous Global Slavery Index
Due to substantial differences in scope, methodologies,
ever undertaken and forms the central component of theand expanded data sources, prevalence estimates in the
Global Estimates of Modern Slavery.33 (2) Administrative2018 Global Slavery Index are not directly comparable todata from IOM’s databases of assisted victims of trafficking.
the previous edition. Since 2014, nationally representative
And (3) data derived from validated secondary sources andhousehold surveys have formed the core element of thea systematic review of comments from the ILO supervisory
Walk Free Foundation’s approach to measuring modern
bodies regarding ILO Conventions on forced labour. The
slavery. In 2016, our estimates were based
Global Slavery Index 2018 uses the sameon results of surveys in 25 countries
data sources and regional and global
Due to substantial
through the Gallup World Poll,32 the results
estimates as its starting point.
differences in scope,of which were extrapolated to countries
As an example of the impact of changes inmethodologies, andwith an equivalent risk profile. Althoughmethodology on the comparability between
this represented the best data available atexpanded data sources, the previous and current prevalence
the time, measurements of forced sexual
prevalence estimates in estimates, the 2016 Index estimated that
exploitation and children in modern slavery
the 2018 Global Slavery around 18.3 million people were in modern
were identified as critical data gaps toslavery in India, whereas the 2018 Index
Index are not directly
address in future estimations.
estimates that there are around 8 million
comparable to the
In 2017, these gaps were addressed bypeople living in modern slavery. Thisprevious edition.
adopting a combined methodologicaldifference reflects the presentation of theapproach when developing the Global
number who experienced modern slavery
Estimates of Modern Slavery with the ILO
on any given day in 2016 (a “stock” figure)and the IOM. This involved drawing on three sources
as opposed to the number of people in slavery over a five
year period (a “flow” figure), as was presented in 2016. Theof data: (1) The existing survey program was expanded
present estimates also reflect the addition of forced sexual
to cover 48 surveys in 54 countries. To date, more than
exploitation and children in modern slavery. For a fuller list
71,000 people have been interviewed and the countries
surveyed represent over half of the world’s population.
of the changes to the methodology, refer to Appendix 2:
It is the most extensive survey program on modern slavery
Part B.

Haifa, a 36-year-old woman from Iraq’s Yazidi community
who was taken as a sex slave by Islamic State group fighters,
stands on a street during an interview with AFP journalists
in the northern Iraqi city of Dohuk on November 17, 2016.
Haifa and her family were among thousands of membersof the Yazidi minority shown no mercy by IS when it swept
through areas north and west of the Iraqi capital in 2014.
Men were gunned down and thousands of women, including
Haifa and her younger sister, were taken as sex slaves.
Photo credit: Safin Hamed/AFP/Getty Images

Global Findings

33

DATA LIMITATIONS
While regional estimates were presented in the Global
Estimates of Modern Slavery, critical gaps in available data
were noted. These are particularly problematic in the ArabStates, where only two national surveys were undertaken,
none of which were in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
countries, despite the incidence of forced labour reported
there by various sources in such sectors as domestic
work and construction. Further, measurement of forced
marriage among residents of countries within the region isalmost impossible where there are no surveys at all. Taken
together, these gaps point to a significant underestimate of
the extent of modern slavery in this region.

Similarly, it is typically not possible to survey in countries
that are experiencing profound and current conflict, suchas Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, and parts ofNigeria and Pakistan. Yet it is known that conflict is asignificant risk factor for modern slavery – the breakdownof the rule of law, the loss of social supports, and thedisruption that occurs with conflict all increase risk of bothforced labour and forced marriage. The lack of data fromcountries experiencing conflict means that modern slavery
estimates in regions in which conflict countries are situatedwill understate the problem. While drawing on vulnerability
data goes some way towards mitigating the impact of thisgap, the need for better data in conflict countries remains
an urgent research priority.

34

Global Slavery Index 2018

SPOTLIGHT FORCED LABOUR IN NORTH KOREA

25,244m

104.6

Population

Estimated prevalence(victims per 1,000 population)

73.3
Estimated vulnerability

D
Government response rating

In 2017, the Walk Free Foundation partnered with researchers at the Leiden Asia Centre
and the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB) in an effort to learn more
about the hidden reality regarding forced labour and other forms of modern slavery inside
North Korea.34 As it is not possible to directly survey or otherwise collect data within North
Korea, the research involved undertaking interviews with 50 defectors from North Korea
who are living in South Korea.
Of the 50 people interviewed, all but one35 described situations they had been subjected
to while living in North Korea that meet the international legal definition of “forced labour.” In
this sample, three key typologies of modern slavery emerged. First, repeated mobilisationby the government of children, and later adults, through mandatory, unpaid “communal
labour” in agriculture, road building, and construction.
»» For children, this might involve daily work in agriculture, or a month of work at harvest
time. The schools, and not the children, received payment for the work. If children did
not participate, they would later be punished and criticised within the school itself.
Participation could be avoided through paying bribes.
»» For adults, communal labour involved being mobilised for “battles” in which workers
are sent to work for 70 or 100 days in a row. The penalty for refusal is a cut in foodrations or the assessment of taxes.
For children, the forced mobilisation started at an early age and ranged from light agriculturalduties to longer periods of hard labour, all of which was without pay:““

When I was a teenager in the Youth League, I had to participate in the
speed battles as part of the shock brigade at least once. I was mobilised
to do construction on the Pyongyang Highway for six months.
Respondent No. 7, female, adult

Disguising his identity, a 20 year old refugee from North Korea now living in Northern
A 20-year-old
refugee fromNorth
Korea ina farmhouse
inlocation
northernwere
China
China agreed
to be photographedon theconditionthat
his face and
not
hides
his
identity.
He
left
his
motherandsisterbehindinNorth
Korea.
recognizable. He reports that he left his mother and sister behind in North Korea. He used
used toa roadworker,but wasconstantly
hungry.
In China,
works
to be a roadHe
workerbutbewasconstantly
hungry(NorthKorea uses
selective
food heallocation
as
a
farm
laborerandaconstruction
worker.
If
he’s
lucky,
he
makes
about
as a tool of control). In China he works as a farm labourer and construction worker.
If he
40
euros
a
month,
but
he
says
his
boss
often
does
not
pay
him
and
locals—is lucky, he makes about 40 Euros per month. However, he says his boss often does not pay
whowhoknow
about
his hisillegalstatusandandthatthathe hecannotseek
help—beathim. Also, locals,
know
about
illegalstatuscannotseek
help, beathim.
him.
Photo
Photocredit:
credit:Katharina
KatharinaHesse
Hesse

Global Findings

35

36

Global Slavery Index 2018““

From the age of 13, every student is mobilised for farm work without
exception. It lasts 40 days for the spring mobilisation and 30 days
for the autumn one.
Respondent No. 10, male, adult

One adult male respondent described his experience with mobilisation as follows:““

You cannot refuse. If the work unit leader orders you to go to work,
you have to do it. If you don’t, then your food rations are cut off.
Respondent No. 1, male, adult

The second typology was forced labour of the general population by the state. Almost all
respondents in this sample indicated they had either not been paid for their work other than
through provision of rations (which themselves can be refused or withheld as punishment) or,
if they had been theoretically paid, wages were in fact withheld due to official donation drives
and other deductions. As some workplaces exist but have no actual production, workers
reported having to procure on their own the goods their workplaces are supposed to be
producing so that the employer could show some output. Others paid fees to be registeredas employees (to avoid being classified as unemployed and thereby risk being sent to alabour camp) but actually worked elsewhere (the so-called “8/3 workers”36). To survive andcover the cost of holding their jobs, they would trade or otherwise sell their labour on theblack market. All but one37 respondent noted that it was impossible to refuse or leave a job
without permission, and any attempt to do this would result initially in loss of rations andthen internment in a labour camp.
Respondents gave examples of some of the absurd situations they found themselvesin as a result of both having to pay to work and pay to prop up the broken system:““

On paper I was a labourer but in reality I did not work as one.
It was a place that raised pigs to support the People’s Army and shockbrigades. It was supposed to raise pigs. But no one actually raised pigs
there. There was no space to raise pigs there and no feed for them either.
Since the labourers cannot work, they are required to pay a certain
amount of money instead. Every month the labourers must give 2kgof pork to the management office.
Respondent No. 23, female, adultCompliance was backed up by the need to be employed, at risk of being sent to a labour
camp. Respondents noted for example:““

If you quit without receiving approval, you will be detained at a labour
training camp.
Respondent No. 30, male, adult““

If I’d quit, I would be caught. And if I didn’t go to work for more than twomonths and was caught as unemployed, I would be investigated by thepolice office and would be detained in a labour training camp. Usually,
the period of detainment was six months.
Respondent No. 38, male, adultGlobal Findings““

I couldn’t quit my job. If I didn’t go to work, I would be sent to a labour
training camp.
Respondent No. 44, male, adult

Finally, respondents also described forced labour inside labour camps. One respondent
noted the following experience:““

The work was hard. Gathering beans in the autumn was fine because
I had done this kind of work, but because it was done in the labour
camp and I did not have any freedom, that was the difficult part. It wasdifficult to work under surveillance. […] I couldn’t use the toilet wheneverI wanted, I had to ask for permission before using it. […] I got up at six
in the morning and went to bed at ten in the evening. In the morning, I
got up and cleaned the yard, then washed my face. They lined us up in
the morning. The line-up officer talked with the head of the camp anddistributed our work tasks.
Respondent No. 8, female, adult

The sample for this research included two defectors who had worked both inside North
Korea and for the North Korean government overseas. Both explained that their wages
were withheld and, at most, some portion was paid to them (after three years, one received
the equivalent of $55 for each month he worked; the second worked for three years toearn sufficient funds to live in North Korea for about three months). While being physicallylocated overseas, they described their workplaces as exported North Korean environments
in which the hierarchical structures and ideological sessions travelled with them.
While the study did not seek to examine the situation of North Korean women who havebeen forced to marry in China, one respondent (a member of the Workers Party of Korea
with a well-positioned job in North Korea) did share the following experience that is relevant
to understanding the complexities of this issue:““

I didn’t come to [South] Korea because I wanted to. I sent one person
across the border. She was with her friend. She directly came to Korea but
the broker sold her friend to a farm owner (in China) who was 20 years
older than her. So she often pleaded to the broker to send her to South
Korea and paid him for that. But all nine people who set out were caught
in China and were repatriated back to North Korea. They mentioned myname when they were investigated about their escape route and helpers
at Cheongjin police holding camp. After this, I had no choice but to leave
North Korea so I left in a hurry. It was unimaginable that the arrested
woman wouldn’t divulge my name during the interrogation process andtorture at the police holding camp, so I left right away. They put mostserious responsibility and penalty for assisting people with their escape toSouth Korea. So there was much possibility that I could have been buried
alive so I left.
Respondent No. 27, male, adult

37

38

Global Slavery Index 2018

To understand the experiences of these 50 men and women, it is necessary to understandthe operating environment inside North Korea. Following the famine in the late 1990s andthe collapse of the Public Distribution System for all but a minority of citizens, North Korean
daily life has become a contradictory mix of socialist rhetoric (in which the Supreme Leader
and the state provide for its people) and market-based realities (in which the general
population supports and funds the Supreme Leader and the State). As noted in interviews,
key features that impact on degrees of freedom in working life inside North Korea include
the following:»» All officially recognised work is centrally organised.
»» Social class determines the nature of the employment you receive (along with yourhousing, access to education, and other benefits). There are three main classes: thecore class (the elite, party cadres, and their families), the wavering class (average North
Koreans), and lastly the hostile class (including descendants of landlords or capitalists).
Status can be and is inherited.
»» The punishment for being unemployed or failing to attend work is internment in alabour camp.
»» Workers are provided with rations for food and other necessities of life, which can also
be withheld as punishment.
»» While in theory all work involves a salary, in reality most wages remain unpaid.
Respondents noted many cases where they had to in fact pay both to keep their job(to avoid being formally unemployed and then sent to a labour camp) and to cover thecosts of production (when quotas or were not met or the workplace actually had nomaterials or production). To maintain their “employment” and to survive, they reported
working on the black market, trading or selling whatever they could.
»» Obtaining a job, keeping it, or switching jobs normally involves payment of bribes
to officials.
As one defector explained that, while forced mobilisation is compulsory, it is equallypossible to avoid mobilisation through bribery:““

There is a certain mobilisation campaign that people should work for three
years. There is mobilisation to Mt. Baekdu for making grass fields. People
from the government would come to a certain region and mobilise residents
for joint work for a large-scale construction project such as paving
highways. I did not participate in such mobilisation. I paid money instead.
I paid 50 North Korean won in 2008. Why should I work when I havemoney? Working there is extremely hard and people escape from there.
Respondent No. 39, male, adult

The picture that emerges is as disturbing as it is unique. While gaining access to a wider
sample of workers across North Korea itself is simply not possible, there is no reason to
doubt that the first-hand experiences related this group reflect the brutal reality of modern
slavery perpetrated by the state. They also described a broader system that they saw
operating around them that not only involves state-sponsored forced labour, but also
depends on these practices for its very survival.
This spotlight summarises a longer set of findings that can be found in the report Pervasive,
Punitive, and Predetermined: Understanding Modern Slavery in North Korea.

Kim Jeong-Ya (a pseudonym), 67, who lives near the North Korean border in Yanji, China,
belongs to a handful of Chinese activists who have dedicated their lives to helping North
Koreans make a safe passage from North Korea to South Korea via mainland China. Kim
has been imprisoned twice and beaten up by North Korean agents operating in China. Kim’s
relatives, who did the same kind of support work “disappeared” in North Korea. Since her
release from jail, Kim has been under intense police surveillance. Her meager life savings wereconfiscated by local authorities, and she is not allowed to leave her home in the suburbs of Yanji.
Photo credit: Katharina Hesse

Global Findings

39

40

Global Slavery Index 2018

What are governments doing
to address modern slavery?
FIGURE 3
Government response rating to modern slavery by country (noting 10 countries with highest government response)

4. Sweden
8. Norway
3. United Kingdom*
1. Netherlands
5. Belgium
2. United States*
9. Portugal
7. Spain

6. Croatia

Rank. Country nameA

BBB BBB

CCC CC

C

D

Not
Rated

10. Montenegro

For full data tables see p.192*Indicates where a country could not score above a BBB.
These countries have received a negative rating forpolicies that hinder their response to modern slavery.

Globally, governments have taken important strides inslavery response.39 One of the more striking findings in
the fight against modern slavery since the publication of2018 is the growing government engagement with businessthe 2016 Global Slavery Index. Overall, the Government
and the increasing political interest in the investigation of
Response Index suggests that national legal, policy, andgovernment procurement, with 36 countries taking steps toprogrammatic responses to modern slavery are improving,
investigate forced labour in private or public supply chains.
with an increasing number of countries
This is a significant increase from the fourwith a BBB and BB rating in 2018 over 2016,
governments identified in 2016.
Overall, the Government
and fewer CCC and CC ratings. However,This year, we have for the first time included
there are some responses that appear to
Response Index
data on all 53 Commonwealth countries in ourbe going backwards, with a small increasesuggests that national
government response database,40 bringing
in the number of countries that were rated
the total number of countries included in ourlegal, policy, andC or D in 2018 compared to 2016.
41
programmatic responses assessment to 181. As data for the smaller
In 2018, 122 countries have criminalised
island nations of the Commonwealth are
to modern slavery
limited, we have not provided an overall
human trafficking in line with the UN
are improving.
Trafficking Protocol, 38 while only 38
rating for these individual countries. However,countries have criminalised forced
taking these countries into account in our
marriage. There are now 154 countries
global analysis of key indicators does revealthat provide services for victims, compared to 150 in 2016,an encouraging narrative: when including all Commonwealthalthough important gaps remain. Eighty-two countries reportcountries, the number of countries criminalising humangaps in the provision of services to either migrants, men,trafficking increases to 135, with 164 countries providing
and children, or a combination of these. More countries
services to victims of modern slavery. Due to the ongoing
are now coordinating their responses, with a three percent
conflict and extreme disruption to government, we have notincrease in the number of countries implementing National
included ratings for Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, Syria,
Action Plans covering some, if not all, aspects of a modern
and Yemen this edition.42

Global Findings

In 2018, the governments taking the most action to
respond to modern slavery are:1 / The Netherlands
2 / United States
3 / United Kingdom
4 / Sweden
5 / Belgium

6 / Croatia
7 / Spain
8 / Norway
9 / Portugal
10 / Montenegro

41

reporting Directive (Directive 2014/95/EU) into domestic
legislation.50 The Directive requires large companies todisclose certain information on the way they operate andmanage social and environment challenges. Although not
specific to forced labour, the Directive offers an opportunity
for more businesses to demonstrate action taken to combat
forced labour beyond those already reporting under the UK
government’s Modern Slavery Act. The first non-financial
statements will be included in businesses’ annual reports
from 2018 onward.

These countries are characterised by strong political will,high levels of resources, and a strong civil society that holds
these governments to account for their actions to respond
Governments are beginning to recognise that public
to modern slavery. These results are similar to 2016, but withprocurement is also at high risk of modern slavery. The
some slight shifts in the positioning of Australia downwards
United States leads the way with Executive Orders 13627
as Belgium moves upwards. While the positive conclusion(2012) and 13126 (1999), which require mandatory reportingof the Australian inquiry into an Australian Modern
and due diligence from all federal government contractors
Slavery Act is to be commended, we strongly encourage
and subcontractors.51 Guidelines and training on forced
the government to pass legislation that incorporates
labour are provided to all government procurement officials,
an Independent Commissioner. On the other hand, we
while the closure of a loophole in the 1930 Tariff Act (19welcome the issuance of public procurement guidelines
U.S.C. § 1307) has meant that goods are regularly seized andin 2017 in Belgium which incorporate suggestions on how
inspected if they are believed to be produced with forced or
to implement ILO Conventions, including the abolitionchild labour.52 In Europe, Article 57 of Directive 2014/24/EU
of forced labour43 and the pilot initiative
allows for the exclusion of contractors fromlooking at the application of ILO standards
public procurement where there has been
Georgia, Moldova,
in the personal protective equipment sector
a conviction of human trafficking or childin Ghent.44
labour.53 At the time of writing, these haveSenegal, Sierra Leone
been transposed into domestic legislationand Mozambique are
It is not just governments at the top ofof all European countries apart fromthe table that are taking positive action
taking positive steps to
Luxembourg and Austria.54 Interestingly,
to respond to modern slavery. Other
respond to this issue
there is also evidence that the Chinesecountries are taking notable action, as
government has investigated incidents
relativetotheirwealth.
45
46
well. Morocco and Côte d’Ivoire passed
where subcontractors in government
comprehensive trafficking legislation incontracts have failed to pay wages55 and2016, which has resulted in improved ratings
the Paraguayan National Secretariat for Children andfrom CC to CCC and from CCC to B respectively. Chile has
Adolescents has an inter-institutional agreement withimproved its victim protection mechanisms by launching thethe National Bureau for Public Contracts to ensure thatBlue Campaign, a website to help improve identification of
any goods or services procured by the government are
47
48
victims , establishing guidelines to help first responders
not produced through child labour. Across Organisation
identify and refer victims, and supporting the implementation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)49of the National Referral Mechanism. As a result, Chile has
countries, general government procurement spending
moved from a B to BBB rating.
equalled nearly 12 percent of GDP in 2015.56 Tackling
As with the 2016 findings, when correlated against GDP
government supply chains to reduce instances of forced(PPP) per capita, some countries stand out as taking
labour therefore has enormous potential to reduce therelatively strong action when compared with those that
number of people in modern slavery.
have stronger economies. Countries including Georgia,
Governments are increasingly collaborating with businesses
Moldova, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Mozambique areto eradicate modern slavery. In 2017, the Bali Process
taking positive steps to respond to this issue relative tolaunched the Bali Process Business and Government
their wealth. Sierra Leone’s coordination body, the InterForum (BPGBF), which is a subsidiary body to the existing
Agency Human Trafficking Task Force, resumed activities
intergovernmental Bali Process. 57 The BPGBF is ain 2015 and approved the 2015-2020 National Action Plan.
cooperative initiative to combat modern slavery and human
In Georgia, the government adopted a victim-centredtrafficking in the Indo-Pacific region. The Forum brings
approach by establishing victim witness coordinators fromtogether government representatives from 45 countries,
the initial stages of investigations through the end of court
three United Nations organisations, and the private sector.
proceedings.
The initial meeting provided a unique opportunity for
Since the 2016 Index, more countries have proactively
information sharing and implementing partnerships with
implemented reporting requirements for businesses tothe joint goal of ending modern slavery.
detail actions taken to investigate their supply chains for
Looking ahead, the Forum is expected to have the joint
labour violations, including forced labour. Twenty-seven EU
outcome of promoting good business practices across themember states, have fully transposed the EU non-financial

42

Global Slavery Index 2018private sector while also encouraging legislative changes
by government.
Countries have taken steps to strengthen criminal justiceresponses to modern slavery. As of 15th June 2018, the2014 Forced Labour Protocol is in force in 17 countries,
with an additional seven ratifications coming into force
in the next 12 months.58 This is important as the Forced
Labour Protocol brings the framework created by the 1930
Convention on Forced Labour into the 21st century. The
Indian government has taken recent action to reduce theworst forms of child labour by ratifying the ILO Convention
182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. In line with the
Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, 56 countries have criminalised the buying andselling of children for sex or sexual services, and 27 havecriminalised the use of children in armed conflict. Despite
these promising steps, in 64 countries penalties for modern
slavery crimes remain disproportionate to their severity, as
perpetrators can be penalised with a relatively small fineor conversely penalised with corporal punishment (itself abreach of international human rights standards).

victims to remain within the country and 71 governments
providing longer term support. Of those 97 countries, only
37 governments offered visas on humanitarian or othergrounds not tied to participation in a court case.
While many positive actions were taken by governments
around the world in 2018, those taking the least action tocombat modern slavery are:162 / North Korea
161 / Libya
160 / Eritrea
159 / Central African Republic
158 / Iran

157 / Equatorial Guinea
156 / Burundi
155 / Congo
154 / Sudan
153 / Mauritania

Those countries with weaker responses to modern slavery
are characterised by government complicity (as is the casein North Korea), low levels of political will (as is the case inIran), fewer available resources (as is the case in Equatorial
Guinea), or high levels of conflict (as is the case in Libya).

These results are broadly similar to our 2016 assessment,with some small improvements in Papua New Guinea,
Guinea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Hong Kong.
The existence of legislation is not in itself enough toFollowing the launch of the 2016 Global Slavery Index,
the Hong Kong government began to take some steps todeter modern slavery crimes and in many cases the lackrecognise that modern slavery is a problemof effective implementation of legislation
by training front-line police and establishingindicates a significant gap in a government
Governmentsa specialised police force. The fact that the
response. While 145 countries haveare increasingly
government is starting to respond is to beprovided at least one training session sincecollaborating withcommended, however, more remains to2012 for their front-line police officers on
be done, including criminalising of modern
identification of victims and investigation
businesses to eradicate
slavery offences and providing thoseof modern slavery crimes, 11 of these didmodern slavery
exploited within Hong Kong with alternative
not subsequently identify any victims,
options to deportation.
suggesting poor execution or low qualityof the training provided. Fewer countries have provided
Responses in certain countries have worsened since 2016.
training to judges and prosecutors, with 108 and 109
Protection measures for identified victims of modern slavery
governments respectively providing training for thesein Pakistan are limited, with evidence that victims aregroups since 2012. Regular training was provided todetained in prison-like shelters where traffickers are able
judges and prosecutors in South Africa, Bolivia, Jordan,
to enter and force inmates into prostitution.62 Services for
and Serbia, among others, however there are reports thatmen, including victims of bonded labour, are also lacking.
this has not resulted in the most stringent of sentences for
Progress remains slow in Mauritania despite improvements
identified traffickers and exploiters, with some evidence
in 2015 to legislation, such as allowing third parties to bringof suspended sentences or conviction for lesser crimes.
cases on behalf of slavery victims and establishing special
Access to justice and protection for identified victims
has improved in some countries. For example, despite
an overall poor response in Hong Kong, children andvulnerable witnesses may now give testimony via videoconference.59 In Indonesia, the government has opened achild-friendly integrated public space in East Jakarta wherechild and adult victims of trafficking can report trafficking
crimes to trained counsellors.60 Fifty-eight countries havea National Referral Mechanism for victims of modern
slavery. In Albania, the establishment of a National Referral
Mechanism has been supplemented by Standard Operating
Procedures, that are used by regulatory and non-regulatory
bodies that may come into contact with victims, including
those covering teachers, doctors, and people working in
the tourism sector.61 Since 2016, 118 governments haveprovided funding to shelters or victim support services.
Longer-term reintegration services are less frequent,
with 97 governments offering measures for foreign

tribunals to investigate slavery crimes.63 There are reportsthat police and the judiciary are reluctant to implement the
new legislation and that several cases of slavery have been
reclassified as lesser crimes.64 In Nepal, the government
lessened protections for refugees, a cohort highly
vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. In Nepal, refugees
from Pakistan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka, among
others, are required to pay prohibitive fines of up to US$5
a day and a penalty of US$500 to obtain an exit permit.
These refugees also lacked legal access to education andthe right to work.65
Despite these countries taking fewer actions due to limited
resources or ongoing conflict, there are wealthier, morestable countries that have taken little relative action whenit comes to combatting modern slavery; when correlated
against GDP (PPP) per capita Qatar, Singapore, Kuwait,
Brunei, Hong Kong, and Saudi Arabia stand out as countries

Global Findings

43

FIGURE 4
Correlation between GDP (PPP) per capita and Government Responses Index

Government Reponse Score

60

40

20

0

1000

2000

5000

10000

20000

50000

GDP PPP per capita

and observations in combination with recent reports of
exploitation at the hands of the government. As a result,
20 countries in 2016 and 2017 showed evidence of forcing
Corruption continues to be a serious impediment to any
their population or sub-populations to work under threat ofeffective response to modern slavery. Almost
menace or penalty. This includes concerning
every country in the Global Slavery Index has
allegations of forced labour in privatelycriminalised corruption, including bribery of
When correlated against run administrative detention centres in
officials, however around 68 countries havethe United States69 and Belarus70 and
GDP (PPP) per capita
conducted limited, if any, investigations into
compulsory prison labour in public and
Qatar, Singapore,alleged cases of government complicity inprivate prisons in Russia.71 In Vietnam72 andmodern slavery cases. This ranges from
Kuwait, Brunei, Hong
China73 we found evidence of forced
alleged complicity of police and border
Kong,
and
Saudi
Arabialabour in drug rehabilitation centres where
officials in Madagascar66 in trafficking of
inmates are forced to work as part of their
stand
out
as
countries
Malagasy citizens overseas through totaking relatively limited recuperation. In Belarus, we found abuse
the alleged complicity of high rankingof civic duties in the practice of Subbotniks,
government officials in El Salvador in childaction despite the size
which requires government employees to67
sex trafficking cases. Diplomatic officialsof the problem andwork weekends and donate their earnings
from the Philippines, Bangladesh, Benin,
to finance government projects underresourcesat
Saudi Arabia, and Eritrea are also alleged tothe intimidation or threat of fines by state
their disposal.
have been complicit in modern slavery cases.
employers.74 Abuse of civic duties also occurs
In 2017, the Global Estimates of Modern
in Burundi,75 Myanmar,76 Rwanda,77 andSlavery produced the first robust measure and typology ofin Swaziland, where there is evidence of the continuingstate-imposed forced labour. For the Global Slavery Index
practice of Kuhlehla, under which the community is forced
2018, we have updated our assessment of state-imposed
to render services or work for the King or local chief.78 Forced
forced labour to identify those governments that meet theselabour for economic development occurs in Uzbekistan
criteria68 by using ILO Committee of Experts comments
and Turkmenistan, where the practice of forcing parts oftaking relatively limited action despite the size of the
problem and resources at their disposal (Figure 4).

44

Global Slavery Index 2018

the population to work in the annual cotton harvest is well
documented.79 In Venezuela, Resolution No. 9855 of 19
July 2016 establishes a system of transition labour that iscompulsory for all work entities, public and private. The
resolution allows the government to transfer workers toentities in the agro-food sector, which requires additional
support to increase production. These entities are alsoable to request additional workers, thus creating a system
of forced recruitment to reinforce agro-food production toensure food security.80 As noted, there is strong evidence,
including recent interviews with defectors undertaken forresearch by the Walk Free Foundation, of the prevalence offorced labour imposed by the North Korean state.
Abuse of conscription becomes state-imposed forced
labour in cases where conscripts are forced to perform
work of a non-military nature. We find evidence of thisin Colombia,81 Egypt,82 Madagascar,83 Mongolia,84and

Mali85 and perhaps most significantly in Eritrea. Under
the pretext of “defending the integrity of the state andensuring its self-sufficiency,”86 the Eritrean government
has developed a system of national service in which
conscripts are exploited and forced to labour for indefinite
periods of time. These forced labourers are required
to build infrastructure and work in other projects for
economic development that help to prop up the Eritrean
government.87 Also, in 2016 there were wide reports ofslave markets in Libya, where migrant men, women, andchildren are sold off to the highest bidder. Alongside this,
there are reports of state involvement from the Libyan
Coast Guard and the Department for Combating Irregular
Migration forcing people who are in migrant detention into
forced labour.88

Teenage girls pictured in the dormitory for unaccompanied minors in
Shagarab camp, eastern Sudan. Tens of thousands of Eritreans live in thearea after escaping oppression and mandatory military service that acts
as a cover for forced labour at home.
Photo credit: Sally Hayden/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Global Findings

45

A full description of the ratings is presented in Appendix 2: Part C.
TABLE 1Government response rating by country (countries listed in order from highest to lowest within rating category)
A

BBB

BB

B

CCC

CC

C

D

70 to 79.9

60 to 69.9

50 to 59.9

40 to 49.9

30 to 39.9

20 to 29.9

10 to 19.9

<0 to 9.9

Netherlands

United States*

Albania

Haiti

AngolaGuineaEquatorial Guinea

UnitedKingdom*

Slovenia

Trinidad andTobagoBarbados

Swaziland

Zimbabwe

Lithuania

Thailand

Nepal

Timor-Leste

SwedenCanadaEstonia

JordanBelgium

Jamaica

Croatia

DenmarkBosnia andHerzegovina

Venezuela,
Bolivarian
Republic ofPapua New
GuineaIran, Islamic
Republic of

Spain
NorwayHungary

Portugal

Dominican
Republic

Montenegro

Finland

Australia

Ireland

CyprusNew
ZealandMacedonia,
the former
Yugoslav
Republic ofAzerbaijan
VietnamUnited ArabEmiratesSouth Africa
TurkeySenegal

Malaysia
LesothoTaiwan,China
Benin
Cambodia
El Salvador
Sri Lanka
Honduras

Germany

EcuadorBulgaria

Iceland

Philippines

Nicaragua
Sierra Leone

Georgia

Moldova,
Republic ofArgentina

Brazil

India

Chile

GreeceLuxembourg

Italy

KosovoGuatemalaSerbiaPolandBangladesh

FranceArmenia

Tunisia

LatviaSlovakia

Romania

Switzerland

UkrainePanamaLao People’s
Democratic
Republic

Czech
Republic

Côte d’Ivoire

GambiaUgandaRwandaPeru

Namibia

IsraelBolivia,
Plurinational
State ofIndonesia

Colombia

Uruguay

Kyrgyzstan

Costa Rica

Paraguay

Austria

MexicoNigeria

Japan
Morocco
Kenya
Algeria
Ethiopia
Burkina Faso
Qatar
Djibouti
Mauritius

Botswana
Tajikistan
Kazakhstan
Singapore

Belarus

Tanzania,
UnitedRepublic of

Egypt

BahrainMozambique

Myanmar
Oman
Madagascar
ZambiaLiberia
GuyanaLebanonMali
Mongolia
Uzbekistan
For full data tables see p.192*Indicates where a country could not score above a BBB. These countries
have received a negative rating for policies that hinder their response tomodern slavery.

Saudi Arabia

Congo,
Democratic
Republic of the

KuwaitGuinea-Bissau

Korea, Republicof (South Korea)

Pakistan

Ghana

Somalia

China

Mauritania

Suriname

Sudan

Turkmenistan

Congo

MalawiBurundiNiger
Cameroon
Gabon
Togo
Cape Verde
Hong Kong
Cuba
RussiaBrunei
Darussalam

ChadCentral African
Republic
Eritrea
Libya
Korea, Democratic
People’s Republicof (North Korea)

46

Global Slavery Index 201804 SPOTLIGHT

ON SECTORS
Modern slavery in the fishing industry

48

What are the risk factors for modern slavery in the fishing industry?
Risk of modern slavery and impact on supply chains
Where else should we be looking for modern slavery
in the fishing industry?
Recommendations: Reducing modern slavery in the fishing industry

49
51

Modern slavery in cocoa agriculture in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire

56

How we measured modern slavery in cocoa agriculture
Prevalence of modern slavery in cocoa agriculture in Ghana
and Côte d’Ivoire
Drivers of modern slavery in cocoa agriculture
Business and government working towards the eliminationof modern slavery in cocoa agriculture

56

Phuket, Thailand - A migrant from Myanmar working
as a fisherman on a fishing boat in Phuket, Thailand.
Thailand’s fishing industry has been under constantscrutiny for allegations of forced labour on fishing boats.
Photo credit: Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images

52
54

57
59
59

Spotlight on sectors

47

48

Global Slavery Index 2018

MODERN SLAVERYIN THE FISHING INDUSTRY
Despite the recognition that modern slavery occurs in fishingindustries in most parts of the world,1 reliable estimates of theprevalence of modern slavery across the sector are few.2
As in other industries where the use of forced labour has
been uncovered, forced labour in fisheries is, largely, driven
by the motivation to reduce costs in a relatively low-tech,labour-intensive, and low profit industry.

Fishers can be lured into situations of modern slavery
by seemingly legitimate employment opportunities,
but once recruited find themselves unable toleave because of the threat of violence towards
themselves or family members, physical confinement
on- and off-shore, the withholding of wages, and thedebts they incur through the recruitment process. 3
Cases of modern slavery were reported in the productsector/source country either through NGO or media reports
and these reports were based on eye witness accounts orinterviews with victims are subjected to excessive working
hours, unsafe working conditions, and inadequate foodand water. The nature of offshore fishing, particularly for
distant water fleets, can make escape from such situations
impossible for months or years at a time.
The occurrence of labour exploitation and modern slavery
in the fisheries of some countries are well documented.
For example, reports of modern slavery in the Thai fishingindustry have been amassed through investigative
journalism and increasingly, qualitative and quantitative
research. Such research has provided important insights
into the entrenched nature and scale of the problem inThailand’s fishing industry and in its region. For instance,a 2017 study by the Issara Institute and the International
Justice Mission examining the experiences of Cambodian
and Burmese fishers in Thailand between 2011 and 2016
found that 76 percent of migrant workers in the Thai fishingindustry had been held in debt bondage and almost 38
percent had been trafficked into the Thai fishing industry inthat time-frame.4 Subsequent research confirms that despite
increased awareness and efforts by the Thai government
to address this issue, forced labour and debt bondage
within fisheries are ongoing and widespread.5 Whileequivalent research has not yet been undertaken in
the fishing industries of other major fishing nations, it isapparent that modern slavery in commercial fisheries is
not unique to Thailand. For example, there have been
media reports of modern slavery and labour abuses aboard
American,6 British,7 Chinese,8 and Taiwanese9 vessels inrecent years.
The labour abuses seen in the fishing industry take place
in a broader context that includes economic, social, andenvironmental factors. First, the increasing global demand
for fish and the rapid growth of industrial fishing fleets, alongwith over-exploitation of many fish stocks, has resulted ina declining catch per effort and falling profitability.10 This

Spotlight on sectors

has occurred alongside the destruction of small-scale,artisanal fisheries that previously provided fishing families
and their villages with food and income.11 From a regulatory
perspective, these results are inadvertently encouraged bygovernment subsidies that seek to keep fishing industries
operating where they would otherwise be unprofitable.
All of this occurs within inadequate and inconsistent
legal frameworks regulating fishing industries, and poor
enforcement where such laws do exist.

What are the risk factors formodern slavery in the fishingindustry?
Together with researchers from the Sea Around Us, at
the University of Western Australia and the University of
British Columbia, the Walk Free Foundation sought todetermine a set of risk factors that are associated withmodern slavery in fisheries at a global level. In the absenceof local reporting, these risk factors enable us to identify
likely areas of national risk.
To understand risk factors, we brought together data on
fisheries and fishing management,12 with data on prevalenceof modern slavery.13 The analysis14 indicates that theoccurrence of modern slavery in major fish producing
countries is associated with the following six risk factors:
1 / Fishing outside of the vessel’s national waters (officiallyknown as Exclusive Economic Zones or EEZs) where
activities may be subject to fewer regulations.

49

3 / High levels of vessel and fuel subsidies provided by
the national government. High subsidies indicate a lackof competitiveness in a country’s fishing industry andsuggest likely pressure to cut costs.
4 / Relatively low per capita GDP of the fishing country. This
may reflect limited governmental capacity to monitor
fleets and enforce fisheries standards and legislation
and/or an increased likelihood that potential workers
on fishing fleets are seeking work in an environmentof limited economic opportunities.
5 / Low average value of a fishery’s catch per fisher. Low
productivity fisheries have a more pressing needto reduce labour costs, as these are one of the few
remaining costs that are not externally fixed.
6 / Large scale unreported fishing by a country’s fishingfleets. This represents weak fisheries governance and alack of legal oversight. Illegal fishing, a major componentof unreported fishing, causes billions of dollars in losses
to economies around the world each year, and poorly
managed fisheries are lawless markets.
These six characteristics reflect two major sets of drivers:›› National Fisheries Policy
the first three variables identified above reflect acountry’s decision to build and, typically, subsidise
distant water fishing fleets.
›› Wealth and Institutional Capacity
the last three variables identified in the analysis
are indicative of a country’s economic capacity tomaintain decent working conditions and report onfishing activity.

2 / A dependence on distant water fishing. Distant water
fishing potentially increases the vulnerability of thecrew to exploitation because of the remote fishinglocations where vessels often remain for extended
periods of time, limiting the ability for monitoring/oversight by authorities.

Phuket, Thailand. A migrant
worker unloading fish on themainland in Phuket. It is notjust men who work in the fishingindustry, women and girls are
involved in activities including
sorting, peeling, and canning to
produce the final product.
Photo credit: Jonas Gratzer/
LightRocket via Getty Images

50

Global Slavery Index 2018

Spotlight on sectors

Risk of modern slavery and impact
on supply chains
Based on the six risk factors, we considered the top 20
fishing countries, which combined provide over 80 percentof the world’s fish catch.15 Slavery in these nations’ fisheries
would thus profoundly impact the degree to which slavedependent seafood exists in the global supply chain. Our
analysis identified China, Japan, Russia, Spain, South Korea,
Taiwan, and Thailand as being at high risk of modern slavery
in their respective fishing industries. These “high-risk”
fishing activities are characterised by a high proportion ofcatch taken outside their own waters at a greater distancefrom home waters than average, by poor governance (highlevels of unreported catch), and by higher than averagelevels of harmful fishing subsidies. Except for Spain,
instances of serious labour abuses have been documented
in the fishing industries of those countries identified or are
strongly suspected as high-risk.16 Combined, these sevencountries generate 39 percent of the world’s catch.
A second group of interest comprises the smaller developing
countries with primarily domestic or geographically local
fisheries. These include Chile, India, Indonesia, Malaysia,

Mexico, Morocco, Peru, the Philippines, and Vietnam. They
tend to be countries that fish at home and have low levels ofharmful subsidies but also have low value catches, low GDP
and high levels of unreported catch. These characteristics,
in some cases, make them vulnerable to having forced
labour in their own national fishing industries and also to
being a source for fishers who become victims of modern
slavery aboard foreign-flagged vessels that fish in theirwaters. Combined, these nine countries generate 31
percent of the world’s catch.
The third group identified through this analysis comprises
countries considered to be at low risk of modern
slavery in their national fisheries. Countries in this group
include Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and the US and arecharacterised by low levels of unreported catch, high value
catches, and high per capita GDP. Combined, these four
countries generate 12 percent of the world’s catch.
While country of origin is an indicator of risk, in reality, seafood
sold to consumers is typically a mix of domestic and imported
product and it can be difficult to distinguish between the
two. Analysis of seafood imports to Europe and the US
suggests that when imported and domestically caught fish
are combined in local markets, the risk of purchasing seafood
contaminated with modern slavery increases approximately
8.5 times, compared with domestically caught fish.17

FIGURE 1
Top 20 fishing countries categorised according to risk of modern slavery in their fishing industry18

HIGH RISKMEDIUM RISKLOW RISK

China

Chile

Iceland

Japan

India

Denmark

RussiaIndonesia

NorwaySpain

Malaysia

United States

Korea, Republic of(South Korea)

MexicoTaiwan, China

Peru

ThailandPhilippines

MoroccoVietnam

An irregular immigrant working as a fisherman on afishing boat in Phuket, Thailand. Many migrants see little
chance in Myanmar for a life of proper employment andso many make the choice to contact a broker that could
help them get across the border illegally to workin Thailand as hotel staff or fishermen.
Photo credit: Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images

51

52

Global Slavery Index 2018

Where else should we be looking
for modern slavery in the fishingindustry?
While the initial analysis was undertaken on the top 20
fishing countries, it is reasonable to assume that theresults can be applied to all fishing countries. While nota confirmation of actual incidence of modern slavery infishing, given the hidden and out of sight nature of thiscrime, modelling can provide important insights into likely

pockets of risk that may have been previously unknown.
For countries assessed in the Global Slavery Index 2016,
each fishing country19 has been rated according to eachof the six risk factors. These ratings were transformed intoa ranking of low, medium, or high vulnerability to modern
slavery in the fishing industry, according to both National
Fisheries Policy, and Wealth and Institutional Capacity.
A country’s vulnerability on these two factors together
represent their overall vulnerability to modern slavery within
their fishing industry. Country specific results are presented
in Table 1.

TABLE 1
Fishing countries classified by National Fisheries Policy (catch outside EEZ, distant water fishing, and subsidies),
and Wealth and Institutional Capacity (GDP per capita, value landed per fisher, and unreported landings)

Country

National
Fisheries Policy

Wealth andInstitutional Capacity

National
Fisheries Policy

Wealth andInstitutional Capacity

Albania●●

Dominican Republic●●

Algeria●●

Ecuador●●Angola

●

●

Egypt

●

●

Argentina●●

El Salvador●●

Australia●●

Equatorial Guinea●●

Bahrain●●

Eritrea●●

Bangladesh●●

Estonia●●

Barbados●●

Finland●●

Belgium●●

France

●

●

Benin

●

●

Gabon

●

●

Brazil●●Gambia●●Brunei Darussalam●●

Georgia●●

Bulgaria●●

Germany●●

Cambodia

●

●

Ghana

●

●

Cameroon●●

Greece●●Canada●●Guatemala●●Cape Verde●●

Guinea

●

●

Chile

●

●

Guyana

●

●

China

●

●

Haiti

●

●

Colombia●●

Honduras●●

Costa Rica●●

Iceland●●Côte d’Ivoire

●

●

India

●

●

Croatia●●

Indonesia

●

●

Cuba

●

●

●

●

Cyprus●●Iran, Islamic Republic
of
Iraq

●

●

Denmark●●

Ireland●●

Djibouti●●

Israel●●CountrySpotlight on sectors

53

Table 1 continued.
National
Fisheries Policy

Wealth andInstitutional Capacity

Country

National
Fisheries Policy

Wealth andInstitutional Capacity

Italy

●

●

Portugal

●

●

Japan

●

●

Qatar

●

●

Republicof the Congo●●

Romania●●

Russia●●Saudi Arabia●●

Senegal●●Sierra Leone●●

Singapore●●

Slovenia●●

Somalia●●South Africa

●

●

Spain

●

●

Sri Lanka

●

●

Sudan

●

●

Suriname●●

Sweden

●

●

Syria

●

●

Taiwan, China●●

Country

Kenya

●

●

Korea, Democratic
People’s Republic of(North Korea)●●

Korea, Republic of(South Korea)●●

Kuwait●●Latvia●●Lebanon●●

Liberia

●

●

Libya

●

●

Lithuania●●

Madagascar●●

Malaysia●●

Mauritania●●

Mauritius●●

Mexico●●Montenegro●●

Morocco●●Mozambique●●

Tanzania, United
Republic of●●

Myanmar●●Thailand●●

Namibia●●

Timor-Leste●●

Netherlands

●

●

Togo

●

●

New Zealand●●

Trinidad and Tobago●●

Nicaragua●●

Tunisia●●

Nigeria●●

Turkey●●Norway●●Ukraine

●

●

Oman

●

●

United Arab Emirates●●

Pakistan●●

United Kingdom●●

Panama●●United States●●

Papua New Guinea●●

Uruguay

●

●

Peru

●

●

●

●

Philippines●●

Venezuela, Bolivarian
Republic ofVietnam●●

Poland

●

●

Yemen

●

●

Legend● High vulnerability ● Medium vulnerability ● Low vulnerability

54

Global Slavery Index 2018

Recommendations:
Reducing modern slavery
in the fishing industry
Almost all countries either catch or consume fish, andfishing plays a pivotal role in the livelihoods of millions ofpeople around the world. It is fundamental to the long-termsustainability of this industry to address issues of social
justice and labour. Ensuring safe labour conditions involves
not just the country to which a vessel is registered, butalso the country in whose waters fishing occurs (or where
fishing occurs on the high seas, the regional fisheries
management organisations), the home country of thefishers, and the countries in which fish are processed andconsumed. Governments and businesses need to focus on
the following combination of strategies:

1/E
 stablish a platform that enableslabour standards to be protected
Minimum international standards for working conditions
should be mandatory and enforced so that migrant workers
can be sure of benefiting from employment in fishing.
Ratification of the ILO’s Work in Fishing Convention (C188)
by all major fishing countries would be a major step towards
this. Presently, only 10 countries have ratified the convention.
Government licensing of fishing rights or chartering of
foreign-flagged vessels should consider known labour
issues when granting access to national waters andincorporate audits of crew conditions into their general
oversight and monitoring to ensure compliance with local
laws and standards.
Registration of crew needs to be made mandatory for
all industrial fishing vessels both in the countries fishedand the country in which the vessel is registered, andverification of crew should be a standard component of
the licensing of fishing vessels to operate. This needs to bebacked up and monitored through inspection regimes – anapproach that can be implemented both by governments
but also by the businesses involved in the supply chain.

2 / Recognise and respond to modern
slavery in fisheries as serious andorganised crime
Forced labour, slavery, and debt bondage in the fishingindustry clearly fall within the recognised definitionof serious crime, undertaken by organised criminalgroups.20 Accordingly, there are already myriad international
treaties, national laws, and specialist investigative units
that have been established to ensure governments areequipped to respond to the jurisdictional and practicalchallenges of these complex types of crimes. Recognisingmodern slavery in the fishing industry as a serious crime
places responsibility for enforcement with national criminal
investigative and law enforcement institutions, rather thanwith fisheries management bodies that are typically poorly
equipped to deal with such criminal activities. There isan urgent need to ensure that consideration of modern
slavery is brought to bear on other initiatives targeting
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU) from anenvironmental or markets perspective. For example, it issignificant that Interpol’s anti-IUU project “SCALE,” whose
mission is to tackle organised crime in fishing, is now being
expanded to explicitly include labour crimes.

3 / Improve “net-to-table” traceabilityof fisheries product and labour
Seafood supply chains can be particularly complex, andthe source of seafood is often poorly documented given
the prevalence of transshipment21 of fish catch, seafood
re-exportation, and numerous stages of processing (e.g.
for canning and production of other products, such as petfood). Governments and seafood traders can both playa role in improving seafood supply chain transparency,
ensuring that seafood is legally caught, humanely
produced, and honestly labelled.22
It is crucial that governments cooperate to regulate andoversee transshipment– a practice that sees fishing catch
and/or crew transferred between vessels offshore. If
abused, transshipment can be used to disguise the realsource of the fishing catch (a kind of “fish laundering”)
and allow illegally caught seafood to be exported andconsumed around the globe.23

Spotlight on sectors

Legislative reforms should be introduced to improve
vessel tracking, for example through mandatory adoptionof ship tracking numbers and compulsory uptake of remote
vessel monitoring technologies, which can assist in theidentification of illegal activities, such as the transshipmentof catch or crew at sea.24
Strengthened legislative requirements for auditing bothsocial and environmental elements of seafood will provide
greater support for seafood traceability organisations andseafood retailers to address labour practices. Incorporating
labour practices in national supply chain policy andlegislation would provide consumers with confidence that
their seafood is both sustainable and ethically caught.
Initiatives led by business that promote supply chaintransparency inclusive of labour conditions can provide
consumers with assurances that the seafood they purchaseis at low risk of modern slavery in its supply chain andmotivate industry partners and competitors to improvetheir labour practices.
Increasing consumer awareness of the implications of
their seafood choices needs to build on the work of NGOs
such as the Marine Stewardship Council and Monterey Bay
Aquarium in promoting sustainable seafood, and Fair Trade
International in providing ethically produced products inother industries, such as coffee.
Enforcement and traceability can be bolstered through theuse of technology, by reducing enforcement and detection
costs, and by automating and safeguarding information
flows within supply chains. This is relevant to bothgovernments and businesses wanting to establish better
governance in their fisheries labour markets. For example,
identification for fishers based on facial recognition,
fingerprint identification, and the use of encryption
algorithms such as blockchain technology can help simplify
and render tamper-proof otherwise convoluted registration
processes that are critical to:
Increasing transparency around crewing arrangements in
the industry (a strategy currently being piloted in the context
of trafficked children25), and reducing the invisibility of crews.
Tracking the international movements of vulnerable fishers.

55

4/R ecognise and address the link
between subsidies, industrial
over-capacity, and labour abuses
Government subsidies support fishing that is no longer
profitable by reducing capital and operating costs, thus
sustaining fleet overcapacity and competition for alreadydepleted resources. In particular, such “harmful” subsidies
typically underpin long-distance fishing activity, behaviour
that constitutes a major risk factor for slavery in theindustry. The capping or elimination of harmful subsidies, inconjunction with reduced fleet capacity, will ease pressureon already over-exploited marine resources and reduce a
key driver of labour exploitation.
In conjunction with subsidy reduction, halting the current
decline in global fisheries will require reducing industrial
capacity (e.g. through buy-back schemes26) and enhancing
and enforcing measures that promote rebuilding of fishstocks. Concurrently promoting the development andempowerment of sustainable and well-managed smallscale fisheries, especially in coastal developing countries,
will increase the availability of sustainable livelihoods infishing. For instance, funds from harmful subsidies could bedirected towards the creation and maintenance of marine
protected areas in coastal waters, which will promote
rebuilding of vulnerable fish stocks.
Tighter and better enforced restrictions on industrial
fishing on the high seas would reduce the complexity
and cost of policing fisheries-related and labour crimesin the remotest areas of the oceans. The high seas arethose areas of the oceans over which no individual
country has territorial jurisdiction, and oversight of fishing
operations, including the monitoring of labour practices,
is normally limited by both capacity and the scale of thearea to be monitored. While challenging, both practicallyand politically, tighter restrictions on high seas fishing byinternational fleets would increase the share of revenue
captured by developing coastal nations, contributing to a
reduction in the vulnerability of the populations currently
at most risk of modern slavery.

56

Global Slavery Index 2018

MODERN SLAVERYIN COCOA AGRICULTURE IN
GHANA AND CÔTE D’IVOIRE
Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire are the world’s two largest cocoa
producers, with their combined production contributing 60 percentof the world’s annual supply of cocoa.27 The Walk Free Foundation,in partnership with Tulane University, and with funding from Dutch
chocolate company Tony’s Chocolonely and the Chocolonely
Foundation, undertook representative surveys in medium and highcocoa producing areas of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire with the aimof estimating the prevalence of forced labour of both adults andchildren, as well as child labour, in cocoa agriculture in these areas.29

How we measured modern slavery
in cocoa agriculture
The criteria for classifying forced labour of adults forstatistical purposes reflect the criteria currently used by
the ILO. Where children are concerned, we sought toapply the ILO measurement framework28 (see Figure 1).
However, gaps in data meant that some aspects were notable to be measured (explained below). Also, additional
information is presented to allow deeper understandingof the impact of family structures on forced labour.
While the ILO considers that children working for parents
in forced labour are themselves in forced labour, our study
did not capture data that would enable us to estimate thenumber of these children, so this aspect is not included
in our estimates and, as a result, there is likely anunderestimate of the overall number of children in forced

labour. At the same time, when it comes to estimating
the number of children who are forced to work,29 the ILO
includes children who are forced to work by any family
members who are not a parent. Consultations with experts
with in-depth knowledge of the cocoa sector of Ghana andCôte d’Ivoire highlighted that, in the context of children
working in cocoa agriculture, relatives other than parents(for instance, aunts, uncles, siblings, grandparents) are often
primary caregivers who take on the role of parent and makedecisions for the child. To account for this, in this study wealso present estimates of the number of children forced towork in cocoa agriculture by someone who was not a family
member, in addition to estimates of those who were forced
to work by someone other than a parent.

Spotlight on sectors

57

FIGURE 1
ILO measurement framework for forced labour of children30
Working childChild not working
with or for parents

Apply measurement
framework for forced
labour of adults

Child working withor for parents

Parents not inforced labour

Child not in forced labour

Prevalence of modern slavery incocoa agriculture in Ghana andCôte d’Ivoire
GHANA
In August of 2017, interviews were conducted in Ghanawith adults (aged 18 years and over) and children (aged
10 to 17 years) residing areas of medium and high cocoa
production and who had worked in cocoa agriculture in
the preceding 12 months. Surveys sought information ona respondent’s own experiences of forced labour in cocoa
agriculture between 2013 and 2017, and for children, theirown experiences of child labour in cocoa agriculture in thepreceding 12 months. The analysis included surveys from
903 adults and 715 children.

Adults in forced labour in cocoa agriculture
An estimated 1.1 million adults worked in cocoa agriculturein the medium and high cocoa growing areas of Ghana
between August 2016 and August 2017. We found thatfor every 1,000 adult cocoa workers in medium and highcocoa growing areas, an estimated 3.3 were victims offorced labour between 2013 and 2017.31 This corresponds
to approximately 3,700 adult victims of forced labour incocoa agriculture in that time.

Forced labour of children in cocoa agriculture
Our findings suggest an estimated 708,000 children worked
in cocoa agriculture in medium and high cocoa producing
areas of Ghana between August 2016 and August 2017. Itis estimated that for every 1,000 children working in cocoa

Parents inforced labour

Child inforced labour

agriculture in areas of medium and high cocoa production,
approximately 1.5 were victims of child forced labour at thehands of someone outside the family between 2013 and2017.32 This equates to around 1,000 victims of child forced
labour in cocoa agriculture in medium to high production
areas over that period.
In line with the ILO criteria for forced labour of children,when including those who had been forced to work in cocoa
agriculture by someone other than a parent, this estimate
increased to 20 children in child labour per 1,000 children
working in cocoa agriculture in these areas between 2013
and 2017,33 a higher rate than the national rate of modern
slavery in Ghana. Hence, an estimated 14,000 children
working in cocoa agriculture were victims of child forced
labour in these areas between 2013 and 2017.
Forced labour of children takes place in the context of highlevels of child labour. Of the estimated 708,000 children
aged 10 to 17 years who worked in cocoa agriculture in
medium and high cocoa producing areas of Ghana between
August 2016 and August 2017, just over 94 percent,34 orapproximately 668,000 children, experienced child labour(children performing either hazardous labour in the previous
12 months, exceeding maximum allowable working hours
for children their age in the previous week, or both). Of
those in child labour, an estimated 632,000 children
performed hazardous work, equating to slightly more than89 percent35 of all children working in cocoa agriculture inthese areas. Of the participants who reported hazardous
work, 81 percent reported carrying heavy loads and 71
percent reported using sharp tools.36
Côte d’Ivoire, Farmers breaking up harvested
cocoa pods.
Photo credit: Godong/UIG via Getty Images

58

Global Slavery Index 2018CÔTE D’IVOIRE
In October and November of 2017, interviews wereconducted in Côte d’Ivoire with adults (aged 18 years andover) and children (aged 10 to 17 years) residing areas of
medium and high cocoa production and who had worked
in cocoa agriculture in the preceding 12 months. Surveys
sought information on a respondent’s own experiences offorced labour in cocoa agriculture between 2013 and 2017,
and for children, their own experiences of child labour37 incocoa agriculture in the preceding 12 months. The analysis
included surveys from 920 adults and 664 children.

Adults in forced labour in cocoa agriculture
We estimate that just under 2.3 million adults worked incocoa agriculture in medium and high cocoa producing
areas of Côte d’Ivoire between October 2016 andNovember 2017. An estimated 4.2 adult workers38 per 1,000
adult workers in cocoa agriculture, equating to around
10,000 people aged 18 years and over, experienced forced
labour in cocoa agriculture between 2013 and 2017.

Forced labour of children in cocoa agriculture
The results of our study suggest that, in total, 891,000
children aged 10 to 17 years worked in cocoa production
in medium and high cocoa producing areas of Côte d’Ivoire
between October 2016 and November 2017. None of thechildren surveyed in the present study reported being
forced to work by someone outside the family between
2013 and 2017. While this result may indicate the problem
is not widespread in these areas within Côte d’Ivoire, it

may otherwise reflect limitations in survey design or thedifficulty of identifying crimes of this nature through selfreporting by children.
In line with the ILO definition of child forced labour, anestimated 1.7 children39 were forced to work by someone
other than a parent per 1,000 children working in cocoa
agriculture in these areas between 2013 and 2017. Thisequates to approximately 2,000 victims of forced child labour.
As with Ghana, forced labour of children in Côte d’Ivoire
occurs in a context of endemic child labour. An estimated93 percent of the children40 working in medium andhigh cocoa growing areas of Côte d’Ivoire were foundto have experienced child labour in the year preceding
the survey, equating to around 829,000 children in childlabour (children performing either hazardous labour inthe previous 12 months, exceeding maximum allowable
working hours for children their age in the previous week,or both). Of those in child labour, an estimated 769,000
children worked under hazardous conditions in theprevious year, corresponding to an estimated 86 percent of
all children41 working in cocoa agriculture in these areas. Of
the participants who reported hazardous work, 70 percent
reported they had worked with sharp tools, 59 percent had
been involved in land clearing, and 60 percent had liftedheavy loads in cocoa agriculture in the previous year.42
Shanghai: show case with chocolates in asupermarket. Cocoa from West Africa is a key
ingredient in chocolate sold globally, Some of thiscocoa has been harvested by forced labour.
Photo credit: Eckel/ullstein bild via Getty Images

Spotlight on sectors

Drivers of modern slavery
in cocoa agriculture
Consistent with prior research on the extent of child labourin cocoa agriculture, child labour is common in the study
areas and is characterised largely by children’s involvement
in hazardous work. As the survey results confirm, within thiscontext, it is not surprising that forced labour also occurs.
Understanding the factors that likely drive these practices
is crucial to developing effective responses. Cocoa
agriculture is generally characterised by small-scale
farming, with around 90 percent of the world’s cocoa
being produced on small, independent farms of one to
five hectares.43 Production is highly decentralised amongan estimated 4.5 million small-scale cocoa producers
globally 44 and cocoa farming is generally the main
source of income for families living in cocoa growing
communities. Therefore, cocoa farmers and their families’
livelihoods are highly dependent on farm yields andcocoa prices.45 Furthermore, work in cocoa agriculture ischaracterised by long hours in the sun performing physicallydemanding work, the use of hazardous cutting tools andpesticides, and it requires travelling great distances andcarrying heavy loads.46
As with the drivers of modern slavery seen in other sectors,
what underlies a person’s risk to modern slavery in cocoa
agriculture is an interplay of individual and environmental
factors that create a setting primed for labour exploitation
to take place. Available literature and research on labour
exploitation in cocoa farming suggests that this exploitation
is driven and reinforced by:›› Chronic poverty of farmers: The average cocoa
farmer earns around 50 cents (US$) a day in Côte
d’Ivoire and about 84 cents (US$) a day in Ghana,well below the extreme poverty line of US$1.25 perday.47 Given the small scale of farms, relatively low
yield, and little power to influence value distribution
across the cocoa value chain, increasing profits in the
sector48 have not reached cocoa farmers, and theirincome remains very low.49 This drives demand forcheap labour, allowing an environment where labour
exploitation and modern slavery can exist.
›› Price instability of cocoa on the world market incombination with feeble bargaining power of smallscale farmers: Farmers are constantly under pressure
to find ways to sustain their livelihoods which may
include cutting labour costs.50›› Low levels/quality of education: West Africa has someof the lowest literacy rates in the world.51 Lack ofaccess to quality education means that cocoa farmers
and adults in cocoa growing communities remain
uneducated and unskilled, further exacerbating
cycles of poverty.52›› The nature of small-scale farming: Given that most
cocoa is grown on independent smallholder plots andmost farmers are not part of larger farmer organisations,
there is a clear lack of governance structures and59

oversight,53 which provides opportunities to exploit
workers with little fear of penalty.
›› Low prosecution rates resulting from lack of accessto police and justice: Cases of exploitation are rarely
reported to the authorities. This is due to difficulties
in being able to reach police stations from remotecommunities to and from which there is little or noeasy means of transport.54

Business and government working
towards the elimination of modern
slavery in cocoa agriculture
Businesses, driven partly by consumer desire for ethicallysourced chocolate, have undertaken efforts towards
addressing exploitation of children in their cocoa supply
chains and have funded prevention initiatives in source
communities.55 In particular, key pieces of research on thesize of the issue of child labour in the cocoa sector of West
Africa56 were spurred by the formation of the Harkin-Engel
Protocol in 2001.57 This voluntary industry initiative wasdeveloped in partnership with US Senator Tom Harkin and
Representative Eliot Engel in effort to eradicate the Worst
Forms of Child Labour58 in the growing and processing of
cocoa. Other initiatives have included the implementationof monitoring and remediation systems for child labour,
community education to increase awareness of the dangers
of child labour among members, and farmer cooperatives toreduce farmer costs, strengthen their bargaining power, andset and maintain payment standards. However, there has
been limited focus on forced child labour and forced labourin adults in cocoa agriculture, and a relatively small amountof data has been collected.
Another step aimed at reducing modern slavery in cocoa
agriculture was made at the 2017 UN Climate Change
Conference, with the governments of Côte d’Ivoire andGhana joining with leading chocolate and cocoa companies
in announcing the “Frameworks for Action” to eliminate
illegal cocoa agriculture in national parks. The actions are
consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement and include
key development partners including the British, Dutch andSwiss governments, as well as the World Bank.59 In 2017,
Ghana made efforts towards the implementation of its
National Plan of Action Phase II on the Elimination of the
Worst Forms of Labor.60 The government of Côte d’Ivoire
has also demonstrated efforts towards tackling child labourin cocoa, committing to further support the National Child
Labour Monitoring System in 2016 and partnering with theInternational Cocoa Initiative.61
While promising efforts have been made, eliminating
modern slavery from cocoa agriculture is a long-term
challenge and will require sustained engagement andcooperation by global and local stakeholders, including
companies that profit from the end product of cocoa farming,
governments of countries that export and those that importcocoa products, as well as the farmers themselves.

60

Global Slavery Index 201805 REGIONAL

FINDINGS
Regional findings

62

Prevalence across the regions
Vulnerability across the regions
Government responses across the regions

62
64
66

Africa		68

Americas76

Arab States

82

Asia & the Pacific86

Europe & Central Asia

92

Miner working in an Angolan village not far from theCongolese border. Diamond extraction in Angola hasover the past decades been linked to torture, murder,and forced displacement, and relies on both childlabour and forced labour.
Photo credit: Olivier Polet/Corbis via Getty Images

Regional Findings

61

62

Global Slavery Index 2018

REGIONAL FINDINGS
Prevalence across the regions
Globally, there were 5.4 victims of modern slavery for every 1,000 people in
the world. Looking regionally, the prevalence of modern slavery was highest
in Africa with 7.6 victims for every 1,000 people in the region (Figure 1).
This was followed by Asia and the Pacific (6.1 victims) and Europe and Central
Asia (3.9 victims). The prevalence in the Arab States and Americas was lower,
at 3.3 and 1.9 victims per 1,000 people respectively (noting the caveats below
regarding data limitations, particularly in the Arab States).

When we separated forced labour and forced marriage,a different regional picture emerged. For forced labour,
Asia and the Pacific had the highest prevalence (4.0
victims for every 1,000 people), followed by Europe andCentral Asia (3.6) and Africa (2.8). The prevalence of forced
labour was lowest in the Arab States (2.2 victims) and theAmericas (1.3 victims). The prevalence of forced marriage
was highest in Africa (4.8 victims), followed by Asia and thePacific region (2.0 victims), and the Arab States (1.1 victims).
The prevalence was lowest in the Americas (0.7 per 1,000
people) and Europe and Central Asia (0.4 victims).
At the regional level, the impact of conflict and state-imposed
forced labour remained consistent with the global findings,
with the highest prevalence occurring primarily in countries
with well-documented state-imposed forced labour ormarked by protracted or recent conflict. The countries
with highest prevalence across the regions included
Eritrea, Burundi, and the Central African Republic (Africa);
Venezuela, Haiti, and Dominican Republic (Americas); North
Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (Asia and the Pacific); Syria,
Iraq, and Yemen (Arab States); and Belarus, Turkmenistan,and Macedonia (Europe and Central Asia).

Data limitations – prevalence
While regional estimates of prevalence of modern slavery
were presented in the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery,
critical gaps in available data were noted. These areparticularly problematic in the Arab States where only two
national surveys were undertaken, neither of which wasa Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) country, despite theincidence of forced labour reported by various sources insuch sectors as domestic work and construction in the GCC.
Further, measurement of forced marriage among residentsof countries within the region is particularly problematicwhere there are no surveys. Taken together, these gaps
point to a significant underestimate of the extent of modern
slavery in this region.
Similarly, it is typically not possible to survey in countries
that are experiencing profound and current conflict, such as
Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, and parts of Nigeria
and Pakistan. Yet it is known that conflict is a significant risk
factor – the breakdown of the rule of law, the loss of social
supports, and the disruption that occurs with conflict all
increase risk of both forced labour and forced marriage.
The lack of data from countries experiencing conflict meansthat modern slavery estimates in regions where conflictcountries are situated will understate the problem. Drawing
on vulnerability data goes some way towards mitigating
the impact of this gap; however, the need for better datain conflict countries remains an urgent research priority.

63

Regional Findings

FIGURE 1
Regional prevalence of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) by category
8

7.6

7
6.1

6

4.8

5

4.0

3.9

4

3.6
3.3

3

2.8
2.2

2.0

1.9

2

1.3

1

1.1
0.7
0.4

0

AfricaAmericas

Modern Slavery

Arab States

Forced Labour

Asia & The Pacific

Europe & Central Asia

Forced Marriage

64

Global Slavery Index 2018

Vulnerability across the regions
An improved understanding of the drivers of modern
slavery – that is, the factors that increase vulnerability tomodern slavery – is critical to the development of successfulinterventions. Our assessment of vulnerability is conductedat the national level and covers five dimensions: governanceissues, lack of basic needs, inequality, disenfranchised
groups, and effects of conflict (see Appendix 2: Part A.1)
A regional analysis of our vulnerability measuressuggests higher risk of modern slavery in the Arab States
and the Americas than is evident in the prevalence data.
The Arab States had the second highest vulnerability
scores across the five regions, despite having relatively
low prevalence estimates.

The Africa region had the highest average vulnerability
score (62 percent), followed by the Arab States (57 percent),
Asia and the Pacific (46 percent), and the Americas(41 percent), while the lowest levels of vulnerability arefound in Europe and Central Asia (28 percent); (Figure 3).
Looking behind the overall vulnerability scores to thedimension level, it is apparent that across the regions,
vulnerability related to governance issues, lack of basic
needs, and disenfranchised groups were highest in
Africa, vulnerability related to inequality was highest in theAmericas, and vulnerability related to conflict was highest
in the Arab States (Table 1). Figure 3 shows how countries
in the region scored in relation to the regional average oneach dimension of vulnerability.

Princess, 43, trafficked from Nigeria into forced sexual exploitation in Italy.
“We saw people return from Europe rich. A woman said she would give me work in a
Nigerian restaurant in Italy. When I arrived I was told I had to pay back a £40,000 debt
before I could leave. They said they would kill me if I didn’t work as a prostitute. The work
was so dangerous. I was stabbed twice. I managed to leave, and now I work to help other
women escape. These traffickers take everything from you – all that makes you human.”Photo credit: Quintina Valero for The Guardian

Regional Findings

65

FIGURE 2
Overall vulnerability score dot plot with regional averages (higher number indicates higher vulnerability)

100

75

50

25

o

AfricaAmericas

Arab States

Individual Countries

Asia & The PacificAverage Vulnerability

Europe & Central Asia

66

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 1
Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension (higher number indicates higher vulnerability)

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
average

38.4

43.1

44.5

35.7

62.0

44.3

21.4

49.9

33.5

22.9

41.4

Arab States

64.8

24.6

41.2

33.4

40.0

57.2

Asia and the Pacific

49.3

31.1

32.3

34.0

32.4

46.1

Europe and Central Asia

34.6

16.8

30.2

34.5

20.1

28.2

Total

48.6

27.0

38.4

37.3

28.7

45.6

RegionGovernanceissuesLack ofbasic needs

Africa60.8

Americas

Government responses
across the regions
The Europe and Central Asia region had the strongest
response to modern slavery, with countries scoring an
average BB rating. Within the broader Europe and Central
Asia region, European governments in particular are
generally characterised by both high levels of political will
and resources, and this is backed up by regional bodies
that provide monitoring and oversight. The Americas
had the second strongest responses to modern slavery,scoring an average B rating, reflecting improvements inboth victim identification mechanisms and support services.
Both Asia and the Pacific and the Arab States have a CCC
rating on government responses. However, the responses

themselves within these two regions were different, withsome countries in the Asia and the Pacific region starting
to provide safety nets and protections for people in highrisk sectors or groups. The Africa region, with a CC rating,had the lowest average regional government responsescore, but this should not diminish important improvements
made in recent years, including introduction of criminal
laws and national referral mechanisms in several countries
including Côte d’Ivoire and Sierra Leone. Despite this, inAfrica, limited resources and ongoing conflict continued tohinder more comprehensive responses to modern slavery.

TABLE 2Government response rating and milestone percentage by region
AverageratingRegions

Supportsurvivor

Criminaljustice

Coordination

Address risk

Supply chainsCC

Africa

28.2

30.9

32.9

42.5

0.3

B

Americas

46.5

48.7

47.2

62.8

4.1

CCC

Arab States

43.3

35.3

30.5

40.5

0.0

CCC

Asia and the Pacific

37.5

36.9

35.6

48.1

1.0

BB

Europe and Central Asia

57.4

57.0

57.4

64.6

10.9

Regional Findings

67

FIGURE 3
Overall government response score dot plot with regional averages (higher number indicates stronger response)

100

75

50

25

o

AfricaAmericas

Arab States

Individual Countries

Asia & The Pacific

Europe & Central Asia

Average Government Response

68

Global Slavery Index 2018

AFRICAREGION HIGHLIGHTS

Cameroon
Central African
Republic

MoroccoSenegalAlgeria

Cape Verde

Mauritania

Libya

Egypt

Eritrea

Djibouti
Mali

Niger
Chad

Sudan
Somalia

GambiaGuinea-Bissau

Nigeria
South
Sudan

GuineaSierraLeone
Liberia

Togo

Côte
d'I voire

Ghana

Ethiopia

Uganda

Kenya

Benin

Democratic
Republicof the Congo

Equatorial
GuineaRwandaBurundiTanzania

MalawiBurkina Faso

Gabon

AngolaZambiaRepublicof the Congo

Mauritius
Namibia
Madagascar

Botswana

Mozambique

South Africa

Lesothohigh

Zimbabwe

Swaziland

low

Estimated Number ofPeople in Modern Slavery

Forced labour
percentage

37%

Forced marriage
percentage

63%

62/100B

CC9,240,000
Regional Proportionof Global Estimate

23%

Average Vulnerability Score

Average Government Response Score

AAA

AA

A

BBB

BB

CCC

C

D

Regional Findings

69

With 51 countries and 16 percent of the world’s population, Africa isenormously diverse in terms of history, development, people, culture,and religion. This regional study summarises a longer set of findingsthat can be found in the Global Slavery Index: Africa Report.

Prevalence within Africa
On any given day in 2016, an estimated 9.2 million men,
women, and children were living in modern slavery in Africa.
The region has the highest prevalence of modern slavery in
the world with 7.6 per 1,000 people in the region.
When considering the forms of modern slavery, the rate offorced marriage (4.8 victims per 1,000 people in the region)
was higher than the rate of forced labour (2.8 victims per
1,000 people in the region).
Over half of all victims of forced labour exploitation(54 percent) were held in debt bondage, with similar
proportions of men and women in the region trapped
through debt. An estimated 400,000 people in the region
were victims of forced sexual exploitation, accounting foreight percent of all victims of forced sexual exploitationand commercial sexual exploitation of children worldwide.

Within the region, Eritrea, Burundi, and Central African
Republic were the countries with the highest prevalenceof modern slavery; however, Nigeria and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo had the highest absolute number
and accounted for over one-quarter (26.3 percent) of all
victims in the region.
These regional figures, while important, should beinterpreted cautiously given the gaps and limitations of datain certain countries. For example, it is not possible to survey
in countries that are experiencing profound and current
conflict, such as Libya, South Sudan, and parts of Nigeria.
The lack of data from countries experiencing conflict meansthat modern slavery estimates in these countries are likely
to understate the problem.2

TABLE 3
Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Africa

Regional
rankCountry

Estimated prevalence(victims per 1,000
population)

Estimatedabsolute number ofvictims

Population

1

Eritrea

93.0

451,000

4,847,000

2

Burundi40.0

408,000

10,199,000

3Central African Republic

22.3

101,000

4,546,000

4Mauritania

21.4

90,0004,182,000

5South Sudan

20.5

243,000

11,882,000

6Somalia

15.5

216,000

13,908,000

7Congo, Democratic Republicof the13.7

1,045,000

76,197,000

8

Sudan

12.0

465,000

38,648,000

9

Chad

12.0

168,000

14,009,000

10Rwanda11.6

134,000

11,630,000

11

Swaziland

8.8

12,0001,319,000

12

Congo

8.0

40,0004,996,000

13

Guinea7.8

94,00012,092,000

14

Libya

7.7

48,0006,235,000

15Nigeria

7.7

1,386,000

181,182,000

16

Uganda7.6

304,000

40,145,000

70

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 3 continued.
Regional
rank
17Country
Madagascar

Estimated prevalence(victims per 1,000
population)

Estimatedabsolute number ofvictims

Population

7.5

182,000

24,234,000

18

Malawi7.5

131,000

17,574,00019Guinea-Bissau

7.5

13,0001,771,000

20

Liberia

7.4

33,0004,500,000

21

Angola7.2

199,000

27,859,000

22

Djibouti

7.1

7,000

927,000

23

Kenya

6.9

328,000

47,236,000

24

Cameroon

6.9

157,000

22,835,000

25

Togo

6.8

50,0007,417,000

26

Niger

6.7

133,000

19,897,000

27

Zimbabwe

6.7

105,000

15,777,000

28Equatorial Guinea

6.4

7,000

1,175,000

29

Tanzania, United Republic of

6.2

336,000

53,880,000

30

Ethiopia

6.1

614,000

99,873,000

31

Côte d'Ivoire

5.9

137,000

23,108,000

32

Gambia5.8

11,0001,978,000

33

Zambia5.7

92,000

16,101,000

34

Egypt

5.5

518,000

93,778,000

35

Benin

5.5

58,000

10,576,000

36

Mozambique

5.4

152,000

28,011,000

37

Sierra Leone

5.0

36,0007,237,000

38

Ghana

4.8

133,000

27,583,000

39

Gabon

4.8

9,000

1,930,000

40

Burkina Faso

4.5

82,00018,111,000

41

Lesotho

4.2

9,000

2,175,000

42

Cape Verde

4.1

2,000

533,000

43

Mali

3.6

62,00017,468,000

44Botswana

3.4

8,000

2,209,000

45

Namibia

3.3

8,000

2,426,000

46

Senegal2.9

43,00014,977,000

47South Africa

2.8

155,000

55,291,000

48

Algeria

2.7

106,000

39,872,000

49

Morocco2.4

85,00034,803,000

50

Tunisia

2.2

25,00011,274,00051

Mauritius

1.0

1,000

1,259,000

Regional Findings

71

Vulnerability within Africa
FIGURE 4
Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Africa
60.8

Governance issues
38.4

Lack of basic needs

43.1

Inequality
Disenfranchised groups

44.5

Effects of conflict

35.7

Overallweighted average

62.0
0

20

The prevalence estimates are consistent with findings fromthe vulnerability measures, which suggest the Africa region
had the highest average vulnerability score (62 percent).
The Africa region performed relatively poorly on thegovernance issues, lack of basic needs, and disenfranchised
groups dimensions of the vulnerability model (Figure 5).
These rankings reflect the challenges that continue toplague certain countries in this region in terms of resource
allocation, effective governance, and acceptance of minority
groups. The Central African Republic, South Sudan, andthe Democratic Republic of Congo had the highest levelsof vulnerability, while Mauritius and Tunisia had the lowest
levels of vulnerability in the region.

40

60

80

100

72

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 4
Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Africa
Overallweighted
average

Inequality

50.2

62.7

58.0

81.6

100.0

51.1

62.9

56.1

85.7

94.7

77.2

50.8

55.6

46.5

86.7

91.7

80.6

56.8

49.6

22.7

88.4

89.5

Lack ofbasic needs

Central African Republic

85.4

South Sudan

75.7

Congo, Democratic Republic ofSomalia

Country

Effects ofconflict

Disenfranchised
groupsGovernanceissues

Sudan

80.7

46.6

42.4

37.0

87.4

87.1

Chad

71.8

43.2

48.5

46.5

46.1

74.9

Nigeria

54.1

41.3

50.2

47.1

95.5

74.1

Libya

81.4

23.0

49.6

28.1

63.1

73.1

Burundi

72.4

42.6

42.1

48.1

41.7

72.9

Kenya

55.1

48.7

49.6

44.5

66.8

70.6

Guinea-Bissau

77.8

40.1

47.6

44.1

17.1

70.5

Cameroon

65.9

36.5

46.2

46.3

53.9

69.6

Eritrea

71.0

50.6

33.7

48.1

25.9

69.6

Congo

75.1

37.6

48.5

46.1

19.6

69.2

Zimbabwe

66.3

45.5

36.6

53.0

25.3

66.4

Guinea

68.3

32.4

54.7

46.4

28.6

66.3

Niger

61.9

41.2

37.0

45.0

50.4

65.6

Swaziland

69.9

50.0

39.4

38.8

11.7

64.8

Ethiopia

62.4

47.5

27.3

34.6

55.3

64.5

Malawi

55.4

51.5

40.9

61.5

19.1

63.4

Angola

60.2

43.4

48.2

48.5

19.8

62.3

Mauritania

67.3

33.7

39.3

50.5

22.3

62.0

Madagascar

54.4

46.8

51.0

56.8

17.3

62.0

Rwanda

56.6

40.8

40.0

55.7

34.0

61.7

Equatorial Guinea

68.4

40.8

36.7

48.5

10.1

61.7

Togo

70.0

31.5

45.3

42.3

17.1

61.3

Djibouti

66.8

38.0

33.9

48.1

21.3

61.2

Uganda

52.8

48.3

38.2

50.3

35.3

60.8

Tanzania, United Republic of

55.5

47.3

34.9

52.7

29.1

60.5

Egypt

61.6

18.4

44.2

52.8

51.1

60.4

Liberia

55.0

44.0

44.1

54.9

18.2

59.3

Gambia

66.8

28.1

41.8

44.1

20.8

58.4

Lesotho

53.8

50.7

44.6

41.9

18.6

58.3

Côte d'Ivoire

59.5

30.1

41.7

37.5

40.9

57.2

Mozambique

48.6

48.3

40.5

48.1

30.0

57.0

Mali

55.3

24.4

35.5

35.9

66.3

55.9

Zambia

45.8

54.4

44.9

49.1

13.1

55.2

Sierra Leone

50.9

46.1

41.2

48.1

18.1

55.2

South Africa

46.7

38.3

61.0

36.9

26.9

53.8

Burkina Faso

58.4

31.6

40.3

35.2

26.2

53.1

Ghana

52.6

29.1

42.0

53.7

21.6

52.2

Algeria

63.2

17.9

27.8

37.0

43.6

52.0

Gabon

56.5

27.1

36.6

47.5

12.4

49.1

Morocco

60.7

18.8

38.1

35.7

22.0

48.3

Namibia

44.6

38.4

55.9

38.8

10.4

48.1

Senegal

43.9

34.8

35.6

41.0

30.9

46.2

73

Regional Findings

Table 4 continued.

Inequality

Effects ofconflict

28.8

39.9

35.3

15.8

45.0

19.7

44.1

44.1

22.1

44.5

Lack ofbasic needs

Benin

51.1

Cape Verde

48.7

Country

Overallweighted
average

Disenfranchised
groupsGovernanceissuesBotswana

43.3

37.9

37.3

37.6

9.7

42.1

Tunisia

47.2

15.4

34.8

31.9

33.7

39.2

Mauritius

25.5

17.7

33.6

31.1

12.2

21.2

Government responses within Africa
TABLE 5
Movements in government response rating for Africa 2016 to 2018

Country

2016
RatingChange inrating2018
RatingCountry

2016
RatingChange inrating2018
RatingSouth Africa

B

B

Swaziland

CCC

CC

Senegal

B

B

Ghana

CC

CC

Sierra Leone

B

B

MalawiCC

CC

Nigeria

B

B

Niger

CC

CC

Tunisia

CCC

B

Cameroon

CCC

CC

Côte d’Ivoire

CCC

B

Gabon

CC

CC

Uganda

B

B

Togo

C

CC

Mozambique

B

B

Cape Verde

C

CC

Egypt

CCC

B

GuineaC

C

Lesotho

CCC

CCC

Zimbabwe

CC

C

Benin

B

CCC

C

C

MoroccoCC

CCC

Congo, Democratic
Republic of

Kenya

CC

CCC

Guinea-Bissau

CC

C

Algeria

CC

CCC

Chad

CC

C

Ethiopia

CCC

CCC

Burkina Faso

CCC

CCC

Djibouti

CCC

CCC

Mauritius

CCC

CCC

GambiaCCC

CCC

RwandaCCC

CCC

Namibia

CCC

Botswana
Tanzania, United
Republic ofSomalia**C

Mauritania

CC

C

Sudan

CC

C

Congo

CC

C

BurundiCCC

Equatorial Guinea

D

D

CCC

Central African
Republic

C

D

CC

CCC

Eritrea

D

D

CC

CCC

Madagascar

CC

CCC

ZambiaCCC

CCC

Liberia

CCC

CCC

Mali

CC

CCC

AngolaCC

CC

Libya**

D

Seychelles****Countries that scored -1 on a negative indicator could not score above
a BBB rating**Not rated in 2016 Global Slavery Index***Included for the first time in 2018, therefore a rating is not provided.
All data are available via the Global Slavery Index website

74

Global Slavery Index 2018

While the Africa region has the lowest average regional
government response score, with a CC rating, there havebeen significant improvements in specific countries anda trend to strengthen modern slavery legislation. Six
countries have passed strengthened trafficking legislation
since 2016, most recently in Côte d’Ivoire and Morocco.

There are also multiple regional bodies in Africa that havebeen proactive in responding to modern slavery, which
points to increasing opportunities to hold governments
to account. Despite this, limited resources and ongoing
conflict continue to hinder more comprehensive responses
to modern slavery in the Africa region.

TABLE 6
Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Africa

RatingCountry

Supportsurvivors

Criminaljustice

Coordination

Addressrisk

SupplychainsTOTAL

BSouth Africa

53.7

61.7

43.8

57.1

0.0

47.4

B

Senegal

49.6

43.9

56.3

54.8

0.0

47.1

B

Sierra Leone

53.7

37.8

50.0

54.8

0.0

46.2

B

Nigeria

58.9

53.3

50.0

47.6

0.0

45.8

B

Tunisia

53.0

31.7

43.8

57.1

0.0

44.3

B

Côte d'Ivoire

34.4

36.7

43.8

66.7

8.3

42.4

B

Uganda

48.1

51.7

37.5

54.8

0.0

42.0

B

Mozambique

57.6

49.4

31.3

42.9

0.0

40.7

B

Egypt

37.6

30.6

62.5

64.3

0.0

40.1

CCC

Lesotho

35.9

37.2

56.3

42.9

0.0

38.3

CCC

Benin

30.6

31.7

56.3

52.4

0.0

37.7

CCC

Morocco

6.5

56.7

31.3

71.4

0.0

36.5

CCC

Kenya

35.7

38.9

37.5

59.5

0.0

36.5

CCC

Algeria

29.4

47.2

37.5

45.2

0.0

36.3

CCC

Ethiopia

27.8

51.1

56.3

47.6

0.0

36.3

CCC

Burkina Faso

38.1

30.0

43.8

42.9

0.0

35.7

CCC

Djibouti

30.4

42.8

31.3

47.6

0.0

35.3

CCC

Mauritius

43.7

38.9

0.0

50.0

0.0

34.9

CCC

Gambia

25.0

48.3

37.5

40.5

0.0

33.9

CCC

Rwanda

36.9

41.7

43.8

54.8

0.0

33.6

CCC

Namibia

34.1

27.8

18.8

54.8

0.0

33.3

CCC

Botswana

32.2

45.6

37.5

45.2

0.0

33.2

CCC

Tanzania, United Republic of

37.2

41.7

25.0

47.6

0.0

32.8

CCC

Madagascar

38.7

52.8

18.8

50.0

0.0

31.8

CCC

Zambia

33.3

34.4

25.0

40.5

0.0

31.8

CCC

Liberia

28.0

26.7

31.3

50.0

0.0

31.7

CCC

Mali

38.9

35.6

50.0

28.6

0.0

30.8

CC

Angola

31.5

13.9

43.8

54.8

0.0

29.5

CC

Swaziland

36.3

18.3

37.5

47.6

0.0

29.3

CC

Ghana

24.8

33.3

37.5

40.5

8.3

27.6

CC

Malawi

33.1

23.9

43.8

33.3

0.0

26.8

CC

Niger

29.1

35.6

25.0

35.7

0.0

25.9

CC

Cameroon

26.7

24.4

18.8

50.0

0.0

25.4

CC

Gabon

27.8

11.7

31.3

33.3

0.0

24.2

CC

Togo

28.7

21.1

31.3

21.4

0.0

23.6

CC

Cape Verde

23.5

16.1

25.0

33.3

0.0

22.9

C

Guinea

8.7

10.6

37.5

50.0

0.0

19.3

C

Zimbabwe

11.7

17.2

43.8

35.7

0.0

19.0

C

Congo, Democratic Republicof the

25.9

24.4

37.5

14.3

0.0

18.9

Regional Findings

75

Table 6 continued.
RatingCountry

Supportsurvivors

Criminaljustice

Coordination

Addressrisk

SupplychainsTOTALCGuinea-Bissau

7.4

31.1

31.3

21.4

0.0

18.9

C

Chad

16.7

13.9

12.5

40.5

0.0

16.7

C

Somalia

8.1

20.6

25.0

35.7

0.0

16.0

C

Mauritania

6.5

25.0

18.8

35.7

0.0

15.5

C

Sudan

2.8

26.7

25.0

33.3

0.0

14.9

C

Congo

8.3

6.7

25.0

42.9

0.0

14.8

C

Burundi

22.2

11.1

12.5

26.2

0.0

10.7

D

Equatorial Guinea

3.7

12.2

12.5

26.2

0.0

8.6

D

Central African Republic

-3.7

0.6

12.5

21.4

0.0

2.5

D

Eritrea

0.0

-1.1

0.0

21.4

0.0

-2.0

D

Libya

0.0

21.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

-2.5

No
ratingSeychelles3

Migrants are seen at a detention centre in Zawiyah, 45 kilometres west of the
Libyan capital Tripoli, in June, 2017. The Libyan coastguard has rescued more than
900 African and Asian migrants attempting to reach Europe, a navy spokesman
said. These detention centres have been used as staging posts for human trafficking.
Photo credit: Taha Jawashi/AFP/Getty Images

76

Global Slavery Index 2018

AMERICASREGION HIGHLIGHTS

CanadaUnited States
Cuba

Jamaica

Haiti

Dominican Republic
Barbados

MexicoGuatemalaTrinidad
And Tobago

El Salvador

Venezuela
GuyanaHonduras
Costa Rica

Nicaragua

Suriname

PanamaPeru
EcuadorBrazilBolivia

Colombia

Paraguay

Chile

high

Argentina

Uruguaylow

Estimated Number ofPeople in Modern Slavery

Forced labour
percentage

66%

Forced marriage
percentage

34%

41/100B

CC1,950,000
Regional Proportionof Global Estimate

5%

Average Vulnerability Score

Average Government Response Score

AAA

AA

A

BBB

BB

CCC

C

D

Regional Findings

77

With 35 countries and 13 percent of the world’s population, the Americas is home
to geographically large countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and theUnited States and features wide socio-economic differences within each country
and across the region. This regional study summarises a longer set of findings,
which can be found in the Global Slavery Index: Americas Report.

Prevalence within the Americas
On any given day in 2016, an estimated 1.9 million men,
women, and children were living in modern slavery in theAmericas. This region had a prevalence of 1.9 people inmodern slavery for every 1,000 people in the region.
When considering the forms of modern slavery, the rate offorced labour (1.3 victims per 1,000 people) was higher than
the rate of forced marriage (0.7 victims per 1,000). A little
over a third of victims of forced labour exploitation were
held in debt bondage (37.9 percent), with similar proportionsof men and women in the region trapped through debt.

The region also accounted for four percent of all victims offorced sexual exploitation worldwide.
Within the region, Venezuela, Haiti, and the Dominican
Republic were the countries with the highest prevalenceof modern slavery; however, the United States, Brazil, andMexico had the highest absolute numbers and accounted
for over half (57 percent) of the victims in the region.
These regional figures, while important, should beinterpreted cautiously given the gaps and limitations ofdata in key regions. For example, there are no surveys
conducted in North America.

TABLE 7
Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Americas

Regional
rankCountry

Estimated prevalence(victims per 1,000
population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

1

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republicof

5.6

174,000

31,155,000

2

Haiti

5.6

59,00010,711,000

3Dominican Republic

4.0

42,00010,528,000

4

Cuba

3.8

43,00011,461,000

5Honduras

3.4

30,0008,961,000

6

Trinidad and Tobago

3.0

4,000

1,360,000

7Guatemala2.9

47,000

16,252,000

8Nicaragua

2.9

18,0006,082,000

9

Barbados

2.7

1,000

284,000

10

Colombia

2.7

131,000

48,229,000

11Mexico2.7

341,000

125,891,000

12Guyana2.6

2,000

769,000

13

Jamaica

2.6

7,000

2,872,000

14

Peru

2.6

80,00031,377,000

15El Salvador

2.5

16,0006,312,000

16

Ecuador

2.4

39,00016,144,000

17Suriname

2.3

1,000

553,000

78

Global Slavery Index 2018

Regional
rankCountry

Table 7 continued.

Estimated prevalence(victims per 1,000
population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

18

Bolivia, Plurinational State of

2.1

23,00010,725,000

19Panama2.1

8,000

3,969,000

20

Brazil1.8

369,000

205,962,000

21

Paraguay

1.6

11,0006,639,000

22

Argentina

1.3

55,00043,418,000

23

United States

1.3

403,000

319,929,000

24

Costa Rica

1.3

6,000

4,808,000

25

Uruguay

1.0

4,000

3,432,000

26

Chile

0.8

14,00017,763,000

27Canada0.5

17,00035,950,000

Vulnerability within the Americas
FIGURE 5
Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Americas
44.3

Governance issues
21.4

Lack of basic needs

49.9

Inequality
Disenfranchised groups

33.5

Effects of conflict

22.9

Overallweighted average

41.4
0

20

The average vulnerability score in the Americas (41 percent)suggests a higher risk of modern slavery in this region thanis evident in the prevalence data. The Americas region
performed relatively well on the dimensions that measure
impact of conflict and acceptance of minority groups, with abetter average score than other regions, but relatively poorly
on the governance and the inequality dimensions, which canreflect increasing income inequality, significant problems
associated with violent crime, and lower confidence
in judicial systems (Figure 5). Across all dimensions ofvulnerability, scores in the region ranged from a high of 70
percent in Haiti to a low of 10 percent in Canada.

40

60

80

100

Regional Findings

79

TABLE 8Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Americas

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
average

49.7

54.1

56.8

20.1

69.6

19.7

60.4

34.3

27.8

57.9

GovernanceissuesLack of basic
needs

Haiti

62.4

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic
of

65.1

Country

Mexico

47.3

23.7

59.0

37.8

68.8

57.3

Honduras

55.5

26.5

58.9

36.5

32.7

55.5

Cuba

60.2

25.9

37.6

47.8

17.3

52.4

Guatemala

51.0

25.8

58.1

40.9

27.4

52.1

Colombia

45.7

19.2

56.4

32.6

63.5

51.6

El Salvador

50.5

23.0

59.8

43.6

22.7

50.7

Guyana

49.5

25.6

60.4

28.1

12.4

45.4

Peru

44.3

24.7

48.0

38.2

27.5

44.3

Jamaica

39.5

24.2

62.2

47.8

15.5

44.2

Bolivia, Plurinational State of

50.9

25.8

46.3

32.1

13.4

44.1

Nicaragua

48.2

24.5

43.3

35.3

22.8

43.9

Dominican Republic

42.5

28.7

46.1

38.8

21.8

43.1

Suriname

55.5

10.7

50.8

28.1

16.3

42.1

Barbados

47.6

14.3

52.5

47.8

9.2

41.9

Ecuador

46.0

23.0

46.4

29.1

23.0

41.3

Paraguay

38.3

21.0

64.7

32.7

22.7

40.9

Trinidad and Tobago

38.6

13.0

62.4

47.8

13.7

39.1

Panama

44.2

21.0

42.6

33.1

9.4

36.4

Brazil

43.1

13.6

56.2

19.8

24.0

36.4

Argentina

39.3

11.4

45.0

23.6

13.4

28.9

Costa Rica

35.2

16.7

40.7

29.4

12.2

28.4

Chile

28.5

13.8

50.0

23.5

20.3

25.6

Uruguay

31.9

13.5

34.3

15.4

9.5

19.7

United States

18.3

18.2

30.3

15.6

28.6

15.9

Canada

16.6

20.7

20.1

9.2

21.5

10.2

80

Global Slavery Index 2018

Government responses
within the Americas
Governments in the Americas have taken strong steps torespond to modern slavery, with improvements in victim
identification mechanisms and support services. The
Americas scores an average B rating, with countries suchas Chile, Argentina, and Peru strengthening their nationalreferral mechanisms and guidelines for identifying victims inrecent years. Certain countries within the Americas, namely
the US and Brazil, also lead the way globally on engaging
with business. Brazil has been engaging with business toprevent trabalho escravo (slave labour) since 2005 withthe launch of its National Pact for the Eradication of Slave
Labour, a multi-stakeholder initiative to engage national
and international companies to maintain supply chains freefrom slave labour.

TABLE 9Movements in the rating for the Americas 2016
to 2018
Country

2016
RatingChangein rating2018
RatingUnited States

BBB*

BBB*

Argentina

BB

BBB

Chile

B

BBB

CanadaBB

BB

JamaicaBB

BB

Dominican
Republic

BB

BB

Brazil

BB

BB

Peru

B

BB

MexicoBB

BB

Uruguay

B

BB

Costa Rica

BB

BB

Trinidad andTobagoCCC

B

EcuadorB

B

Nicaragua

B

B

GuatemalaB

B

PanamaCCC

B

Bolivia,
Plurinational State
of

CCC

B

Colombia

B

B

Paraguay

B

B

Haiti

CCC

CCC

Barbados

CCC

CCC

El Salvador

CCC

CCC

Honduras

CCC

CCC

GuyanaCCC

CCC

Venezuela,
Bolivarian
Republic of

CCCC

Suriname

CC

CC

Cuba

CC

CC

Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Dominica,
Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia,
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines****Countries that scored -1 on a negative indicator could not score above a
BBB rating**Not rated in 2016 Global Slavery Index***Included for the first time in 2018, therefore a rating is not provided.
All data are still available via the Global Slavery Index website

Regional Findings

81

TABLE 10Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Americas

RatingCountry

Supportsurvivors

Criminaljustice

Coordination

Addressrisk

Supplychains

TOTAL

BBB*

United States

92.6

75.6

56.3

66.7

65.0

71.7

BBB

Argentina

70.0

70.6

62.5

78.6

0.0

62.6

BBB

Chile

76.5

53.9

50.0

76.2

0.0

62.3

BB

Canada

52.4

72.8

75.0

61.9

0.0

58.6

BB

Jamaica

50.6

72.8

75.0

64.3

0.0

58.6

BB

Dominican Republic

69.1

78.3

37.5

69.0

0.0

58.0

BB

Brazil

38.9

47.8

87.5

73.8

26.7

55.6

BB

Peru

75.9

42.2

62.5

54.8

0.0

52.5

BB

Mexico

53.7

62.8

56.3

69.0

0.0

52.4

BB

Uruguay

40.6

49.4

50.0

78.6

0.0

50.4

BB

Costa Rica

53.7

41.7

62.5

59.5

0.0

50.0

B

Trinidad and Tobago

67.2

50.0

31.3

66.7

0.0

49.9

B

Ecuador

61.1

55.6

37.5

52.4

0.0

46.4

B

Nicaragua

34.4

70.0

25.0

66.7

0.0

46.3

B

Guatemala

42.2

25.6

62.5

69.0

0.0

45.2

B

Panama

32.6

60.0

31.3

78.6

0.0

43.9

B

Bolivia, Plurinational State of

21.3

43.9

62.5

61.9

8.3

41.3

B

Colombia

40.4

42.2

62.5

69.0

0.0

41.1

B

Paraguay

26.1

56.7

37.5

71.4

10.0

40.9

Haiti

49.6

42.8

18.8

47.6

0.0

39.7

CCC

Barbados

53.3

26.1

37.5

45.2

0.0

39.4

CCC

El Salvador

31.7

39.4

43.8

64.3

0.0

37.4

CCC

CCC

Honduras

27.6

25.6

62.5

54.8

0.0

37.0

CCC

Guyana

33.1

44.4

25.0

45.2

0.0

31.5

CC

Venezuela, Bolivarian
Republic of

23.3

43.9

12.5

52.4

0.0

28.2

CC

Suriname

24.3

5.6

31.3

54.8

0.0

27.1

CC

Cuba

13.0

15.0

18.8

42.9

0.0

20.8

No
ratingAntigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia,
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines4*Indicates where a country could not score above a BBB. These countries
have received a negative rating for policies that hinder their response tomodern slavery.

82

Global Slavery Index 2018

ARAB STATESREGION HIGHLIGHTS

Syria
Lebanon
Iraq

BahrainJordanKuwait
Qatar
United ArabEmirates

Saudi Arabia

Oman

Yemen

high

low

Estimated Number ofPeople in Modern Slavery

Forced labour
percentage

67%

Forced marriage
percentage

33%

57/100B

CC520,000
Regional Proportionof Global Estimate

1%

Average Vulnerability Score

Average Government Response Score

AAA

AA

A

BBB

BB

CCC

C

D

Regional Findings

83

The Arab States region covers 11 countries including Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan,
Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates andYemen, and is home to two percent of the world’s population. The region isdiverse, spanning the wealthier Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC countries) andcountries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, which are dealing with the impact
of ongoing conflict in Syria. This regional study summarises a longer set offindings, which can be found in the Global Slavery Index: Arab States Report.

Prevalence within the Arab States
On any given day in 2016, an estimated 520,000 men,
women, and children were living in modern slavery in the
Arab States. This is a prevalence of 3.3 victims per 1,000
persons. When considering the forms of modern slavery,
the largest share of those in modern slavery were victims
of forced labour (2.2 victims per 1,000 people), while therate of forced marriage was 1.1 victims per 1,000 people.
Over half of all victims of forced labour exploitation(51 percent) were held in debt bondage and this affected agreater share of female victims than male victims. The ArabStates accounted for one percent of victims of forced sexual
exploitation globally.
Within the region, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen had both thehighest prevalence of modern slavery and the highest
absolute number of victims, accounting for 76 percent of
the victims in the region.
These regional figures, while important, should beinterpreted cautiously given the gaps and limitations of datain this region. Only two national surveys were conductedin the Arab States region (Lebanon and Jordan), bothconducted in Arabic, and none were conducted in the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) states, despite the incidence offorced labour reported by various sources in such sectors
as domestic work and construction in the GCC countries.
The regional estimates for the Arab States were therefore
built mainly from respondents who were interviewed in theircountry of residence and reported about their forced labour
situation while working in that region. Further, measurementof forced marriage among residents of countries within
the region is particularly problematic where there are no
surveys. Taken together, these gaps point to the likelihoodof a significant underestimation of the extent of modern
slavery in this region.
Similarly, as it is typically not possible to survey in countries
that are experiencing profound and current conflict, suchas Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, data from these states are likely
to understate the problem.5

TABLE 11
Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Arab States6
Regional
rankCountry

Estimated prevalence(victims per 1,000
population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

1

Syrian Arab Republic*

7.3

136,000

18,735,000

2

Iraq*

4.8

174,000

36,116,000

3Yemen*

3.1

85,00026,916,000

4

Oman*

2.1

9,000

4,200,000

5Saudi Arabia*

1.9

61,00031,557,000

6Bahrain*

1.9

3,000

1,372,000

7

Jordan*1.8

17,0009,159,000

8

Lebanon*

1.7

10,0005,851,000

9

United Arab Emirates*

1.7

15,0009,154,000

10Qatar*

1.5

4,000

2,482,000

11

Kuwait*

1.5

6,000

3,936,000*Substantial gaps in data exist for the Arab States region and Gulf countries in particular. These gaps point to a significant underestimate of the extent ofmodern slavery in this region. As a result, the country-level estimates presented here are considered very conservative and should be interpreted cautiously.

84

Global Slavery Index 2018

Vulnerability within
the Arab States
FIGURE 6
Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Arab States
64.8

Governance issues
24.6

Lack of basic needs

41.2

Inequality
Disenfranchised groups

33.4

Effects of conflict

40.0

Overallweighted average

57.2
0

20

40

A regional analysis of our vulnerability measures suggests
higher risk of modern slavery in the Arab States than isevident in the prevalence data, with the Arab States rating
as the second most vulnerable region (57 percent). The
Arab States region performed relatively well on the lack ofbasic needs dimension of the vulnerability model, but
relatively poorly on the governance and effects of conflict
dimensions (Figure 6). The regional score in the conflict
dimension hides diversity within the region, with some

60

80

100

countries such as Yemen, Syria, and Iraq scoring muchhigher on this dimension than other countries in the region.
The regional average on measures of inequality points toslightly higher vulnerability than the global average on thisdimension (41 percent cf 38 percent) and, again, there is agreat deal of diversity within the region, with scores ranging
from a low of 25 percent in UAE to a high of 65 percent in
Iraq. Across all dimensions of vulnerability, the highest score
was found in Syria (92 percent).

TABLE 12Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Arab States

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
average

62.5

33.4

95.4

92.3

43.1

49.2

53.0

69.9

86.4

34.9

65.2

46.6

89.4

85.7

GovernanceissuesLack ofbasic needs

Syrian Arab Republic

85.6

36.9

Yemen

79.2

Iraq

72.6

Country

Lebanon

59.1

22.6

48.1

44.8

47.8

58.9

Oman

68.7

20.5

37.8

33.4

6.4

50.1

Jordan

57.9

15.7

41.8

47.4

26.2

49.9

Bahrain

63.0

25.8

34.5

24.0

25.4

49.6

Saudi Arabia

63.2

21.9

30.1

14.2

32.2

46.3

Kuwait

59.7

20.1

29.3

29.3

28.5

45.9

Qatar

56.3

13.8

29.5

33.4

7.0

37.7

United Arab Emirates

47.9

15.1

24.7

7.8

11.9

26.8

85

Regional Findings

TABLE 13
Movements in government response rating for the
Arab States 2016 to 2018

Government responses within
the Arab States
The Arab States region scores an average CCC rating on
government response. This is despite its relatively highGDP (PPP) per capita in the GCC countries. As a wealthy
subregion, the GCC States average CCC rating reveals
limited protections for migrant populations most vulnerable
to modern slavery. Unlike Asia Pacific (also averaging CCC),
the more stable governments in this region which might be
expected to act, have taken very few steps to protect therights and safety of the millions of migrant workers whomake up their construction and domestic work sectors.
Other countries in the region, such as Jordan and Lebanon,
have put in place some protections for migrant populations,but struggle to deal with ongoing conflict in Syria andYemen, and the flow of people fleeing these crises.

2016
RatingCountry
United ArabEmirates

Change inrating2018
RatingB

B

Jordan

B

CCC

Qatar

CCC

CCC

Bahrain

CCC

CCC

Oman

CCC

CCC

Lebanon

CCC

CCC

Saudi Arabia

CC

CC

KuwaitCC

CC

TABLE 14
Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Arab States

RatingB

Country
United Arab Emirates

Supportsurvivors

Criminaljustice

Coordination

Address risk

Supplychains

TOTAL

63.0

41.1

56.3

42.9

0.0

47.8

CCC

Jordan

48.1

42.8

31.3

38.1

0.0

38.6

CCC

Qatar

53.0

31.7

31.3

42.9

0.0

35.4

CCC

Bahrain

55.2

37.2

18.8

31.0

0.0

32.6

CCC

Oman

32.4

22.8

12.5

59.5

0.0

32.0

CCC

Lebanon

33.9

30.0

31.3

38.1

0.0

31.3

CC

Saudi Arabia

32.4

42.8

37.5

26.2

0.0

27.9

CC

Kuwait

28.7

33.9

25.0

45.2

0.0

27.8

86

Global Slavery Index 2018

ASIA & THE PACIFICREGION HIGHLIGHTS

Bangladesh
Afghanistan

North Korea

South Korea

Japan

Nepal
Mongolia
Hong Kong,
China
China

Taiwan, China

Iran

Lao PDR
India

Vietnam
Cambodia

Pakistan
Philippines
Myanmar

Sri Lanka

Malaysia

ThailandSingaporePapua
New Guinea

Indonesia
Australia

BruneiNew Zealand

Timor-Leste

high

low

Estimated Number ofPeople in Modern Slavery

Forced labour
percentage

66%

Forced marriage
percentage

34%

46/100B

CC24,990,000
Regional Proportionof Global Estimate

62%

Average Vulnerability Score

Average Government Response Score

AAA

AA

A

BBB

BB

CCC

C

D

Regional Findings

87With 36 countries and 56 percent of the world’s population, the Asia and the Pacificis the world’s largest region and is broadly diverse in terms of ethnicity, culture,religion, and development. This regional study summarises a longer set of findings,
which can be found in the Global Slavery Index: Asia and the Pacific Report.

Prevalence with in Asiaand the Pacific
On any given day in 2016, an estimated 24.9 million men,
women, and children were living in modern slavery in
Asia and the Pacific. The region had the second highest
prevalence of modern slavery in the world with 6.1 per
1,000 people.
When considering forms of modern slavery, the Asia andPacific region had a high prevalence of forced labour (4.0
per 1,000 people) compared to other regions. The rate offorced marriage was two victims per 1,000 people.
Over half of all victims of forced labour exploitation (55percent) were held in debt bondage and this affectedmale victims more than female victims. The Asia and thePacific region had the highest number of victims acrossall forms of modern slavery, accounting for 73 percent ofvictims of forced sexual exploitation, 68 percent of thoseforced to work by state authorities, 64 percent of those inforced labour exploitation, and 42 percent of all those inforced marriages.
Within the region, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
were the countries with the highest prevalence of modern
slavery. India, China, and Pakistan had the highest absolute
number of people living in modern slavery and accounted
for 60 percent of the victims in the region.
These regional figures, while important, should be interpreted
cautiously given the gaps and limitations of data in key regions
and subregions. For example, only one national survey was
conducted in East Asia (Mongolia), and it is not possible tosurvey in areas of countries that are experiencing profoundand current conflict, such as within parts of Pakistan. The lackof data from these regions experiencing conflict means thatmodern slavery estimates for conflict-affected countries arelikely to understate the problem.7

TABLE 15
Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Asia and the PacificRegional
rankCountry

Estimated prevalence(victims per 1,000
population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

2,640,000

25,244,000

1Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)*

104.6

2

Afghanistan

22.2

749,000

33,736,000

3

Pakistan

16.8

3,186,000

189,381,000

4Cambodia

16.8

261,000

15,518,000

5Iran, Islamic Republic of

16.2

1,289,000

79,360,000

6

Mongolia

12.3

37,0002,977,000

7Myanmar11.0

575,000

52,404,000

8Brunei Darussalam

10.9

5,000

418,000

9

Papua New Guinea

10.3

81,0007,920,000

10

Lao People's Democratic
Republic

9.4

62,0006,664,000

11

Thailand

8.9

610,000

68,658,000

12Philippines

7.7

784,000

101,716,000

13Timor-Leste

7.7

10,0001,241,000

88

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 15 continued.

Country

Estimated prevalence(victims per 1,000
population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

14

Malaysia

6.9

212,000

30,723,000

Regional
rank

15

India

6.1

7,989,000

1,309,054,000

16

Nepal

6.0

171,000

28,656,000

17Indonesia

4.7

1,220,000

258,162,00018Viet Nam

4.5

421,000

93,572,000

19Bangladesh

3.7

592,000

161,201,000

20Singapore*

3.4

19,0005,535,000

21

China*

2.8

3,864,000

1,397,029,000

22

Sri Lanka

2.1

44,00020,714,000

23

Korea, Republic of (South Korea)*

1.9

99,00050,594,000

24

Hong Kong, China*

1.4

10,0007,246,000

25

Australia

0.6

15,00023,800,000

26

New Zealand

0.6

3,000

4,615,000

27

Taiwan, China*

0.5

12,00023,486,000

28Japan*

0.3

37,000127,975,000*Substantial gaps in data exist for the Central and East Asia subregions where, with the exception of Mongolia, surveys cannot be conducted for reasons suchas (i) survey is only delivered face-to-face, (ii) survey is delivered only in the main language which many migrant workers do not speak, or (iii) national authorities
would not, or were unlikely to, consent to the module on modern slavery. Unlike several countries in Western Europe where no surveys were conducted,
none of the countries in these subregions were identified as sites of exploitation by respondents in the 48 countries where surveys were implemented

Vulnerability within Asiaand the Pacific
FIGURE 7
Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Asia and the Pacific

49.3

Governance issues
31.1

Lack of basic needs

32.3

Inequality
Disenfranchised groups

34.0

Effects of conflict

32.4

Overallweighted average

46.1
0

20

Overall, the Asia and the Pacific region performed relatively
well on the conflict dimension of the vulnerability model.
Nonetheless, countries with highest prevalence in the region
include North Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. North Korea
has well documented state-imposed forced labour, andAfghanistan and Pakistan are both impacted by protracted
and ongoing conflict. The Asia and the Pacific region scored

40

60

80

100

relatively poorly on the disenfranchised groups dimension,
which perhaps reflects discrimination of individuals on
the basis of migration status, race, ethnicity, and/or sexual
orientation (Figure 7). A key flash point in the region has been
the mass displacement, abductions, sexual violence, andmurders committed against the Rohingya population from
Myanmar.8 International organisations have already warned

Regional Findingsof the likelihood of sexual enslavement and human trafficking
occurring as a result of this crisis.9 On overall vulnerability,89

Afghanistan had the highest levels of vulnerability (94 percent)and New Zealand the lowest (two percent).

TABLE 16
Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Asia and the PacificCountry Name

GovernanceissuesLack ofbasic needs

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
averageAfghanistan

81.0

41.3

64.7

46.0

92.6

93.9

Pakistan

56.8

36.2

45.9

55.3

92.8

74.1

Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)

87.6

52.0

30.3

32.4

12.3

73.3

Myanmar

58.1

43.8

26.1

46.0

70.2

65.9

Cambodia

66.3

38.5

41.6

56.7

14.8

63.5

Iran, Islamic Republic of

74.6

25.5

35.8

37.3

39.5

63.3

Papua New Guinea

64.8

63.3

46.2

9.5

13.3

61.9

Philippines

50.5

35.3

45.7

36.4

69.3

60.2

Lao People's Democratic
Republic

70.7

35.1

26.4

41.2

13.9

57.5

India

46.2

29.8

32.4

41.1

80.0

55.5

Timor-Leste

58.4

41.9

37.2

41.2

3.9

52.8

Thailand

50.9

21.8

35.3

45.1

51.9

51.1

China

61.4

20.5

26.9

32.4

44.2

50.6

Indonesia

43.7

38.0

35.8

53.3

32.2

50.5

Bangladesh

54.1

38.4

25.7

20.9

45.3

50.0

Brunei Darussalam

53.5

30.9

31.7

41.2

18.2

47.2

Nepal

52.0

35.6

32.2

8.7

34.7

44.1

Mongolia

40.9

36.8

35.1

47.1

18.1

43.5

Sri Lanka

44.1

27.0

33.5

34.9

35.9

42.5

Vietnam

53.6

23.2

28.1

32.5

18.5

41.5

Malaysia

36.2

28.4

39.6

41.2

27.8

39.2

Korea, Republic of(South Korea)

33.9

29.4

25.7

33.8

13.4

29.8

Hong Kong, China

39.3

9.6

24.7

28.4

15.0

24.7

Taiwan, China

24.5

24.7

40.6

21.1

1.4

20.3

Japan

21.5

13.1

15.5

31.9

17.8

13.8

Singapore

30.8

16.3

5.0

18.7

9.0

13.4

Australia

11.9

15.7

20.7

12.0

13.0

4.3

New Zealand

12.2

18.4

16.2

7.0

7.0

1.9

90

Global Slavery Index 2018

Government responses
within Asia and the PacificAsia and the Pacific scored an average CCC rating on
government response. While this is the same overallrating as given to the Arab States (also averaging CCC),
Asia and the Pacific has shown a trend toward improving
the safety nets that help to prevent modern slavery forspecific groups or sectors. For example, recognising that
migrant workers from this region can become vulnerable,
there have been attempts to strengthen pre-departure andon-arrival protection for domestic and construction workers
from South Asia working in the Arab States, including theuse of bilateral labour agreements that include protections.
Certain sectors, such as the Southeast Asian fishingindustry, have also been in the spotlight in recent years, andwhile the Thai and Indonesian governments in particularhave taken steps to respond to the issue, more remains to
be done to reduce the endemic abuse that occurs in thefishing industry.

TABLE 17
Movements in government response rating for Asiaand the Pacific 2016 to 2018

Country

2016
RatingChangein rating2018
RatingAustralia

BBB

BBB

New Zealand

BB

BB

Philippines

BB

BB

Indonesia

B

BB

Thailand

B

B

Vietnam

B

B

India

B

B

Bangladesh

B

B

Nepal

B

CCC

Malaysia

CCC

CCC

Taiwan, China

CCC

CCC

Cambodia

CCC

CCC

Sri Lanka

B

CCC

Japan

CCC

CCC

Lao People’s
Democratic
Republic

CCC

CCC

Singapore

CC

CCC

Myanmar

CCC

CCC

Mongolia

CCC

CCC

Timor-Leste

CC

CC

Korea, Democratic
People’s Republicof (North Korea)

CC

CC

China

CCC

CC

Hong Kong, China

C

CC

Brunei Darussalam

C

CC

Papua New Guinea

CC

Pakistan

CCC

C

Iran, Islamic
D
D
Republic ofKorea, Republic ofD
D(South Korea)
Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga,
Tuvalu, Vanuatu****Countries that scored -1 on a negative indicator could not score above a
BBB rating**Not rated in 2016 Global Slavery Index***Included for the first time in 2018, therefore a rating is not provided.
All data are available via the Global Slavery Index website

Regional Findings

91

TABLE 18
Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Asia and the Pacific
Addressrisk

Supplychains

TOTAL

69.0

0.0

63.8

95.2

0.0

57.6

0.0

55.8

61.9

0.0

50.8

73.8

0.0

48.9

Country

Supportsurvivors

Criminaljustice

Coordination

BBB

Australia

69.6

75.0

56.3

BB

New Zealand

53.7

47.8

43.8

BB

Philippines

51.5

69.4

50.0

69.0

BB

Indonesia

47.8

60.0

50.0

B

Thailand

46.3

51.7

56.3

B

Vietnam

62.2

45.0

62.5

66.7

0.0

48.1

B

India

46.3

53.3

56.3

45.2

0.0

45.7

RatingB
CCC

Bangladesh

43.1

63.3

68.8

42.9

0.0

44.4

Nepal

35.2

41.7

50.0

59.5

0.0

38.7

CCC

Malaysia

40.0

53.9

56.3

38.1

0.0

38.4

CCC

Taiwan, China

46.9

38.7

25.0

42.9

8.3

38.2

CCC

Cambodia

40.4

46.7

43.8

33.3

0.0

37.6

CCC

Sri Lanka

26.7

42.8

25.0

78.6

0.0

37.4

CCC

Japan

43.5

44.4

37.5

45.2

0.0

36.6

CCC

Lao People's Democratic
Republic

38.9

36.7

50.0

40.5

0.0

34.0

CCC

Singapore

40.0

22.2

31.3

42.9

0.0

32.8

CCC

Myanmar

58.0

18.3

43.8

42.9

0.0

32.4

CCC

Mongolia

27.8

33.3

31.3

54.8

0.0

30.7

CC

Timor-Leste

33.1

16.7

25.0

42.9

0.0

28.5

CC

Korea, Republic of(South Korea)

35.9

27.8

12.5

33.3

0.0

27.6

CC

China

23.5

29.4

43.8

52.4

18.3

27.4

CC

Hong Kong, China

30.2

10.0

12.5

31.0

0.0

21.4

CC

Brunei Darussalam

17.8

19.4

0.0

42.9

0.0

20.6

C

Papua New Guinea

26.5

30.6

6.3

26.2

0.0

18.9

C

Pakistan

21.5

15.6

12.5

40.5

0.0

18.6

D

Iran, Islamic Republic of

7.4

9.4

0.0

23.8

0.0

6.8

D

Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)

0.0

-6.7

12.5

4.8

0.0

-5.6

No
ratingFiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu10

92

Global Slavery Index 2018

EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA
REGION HIGHLIGHTSSlovakia

SwedenNorwayHungary Poland

FinlandLithuania

Estonia

Belarus

LatviaCzech Republic
Austria

Moldova

Slovenia
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
IcelandUnitedKingdom
RussiaLuxembourg
Ireland
Switzerland
FranceUkraineKazakhstan

Italy

Uzbekistan
Kyrgyzstan

Spain

Turkmenistan

TurkeyPortugal

Tajikstan
Georgia
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Romania
Bulgaria
SerbiaCroatia

Bosnia & Herzegovina

highMontenegro

Albania

Macedonia

IsraelCyprusGreeceKosovolow

Estimated Number ofPeople in Modern Slavery

91%

Forced labour
percentage

3,590,000
Regional Proportionof Global Estimate

9%

Forced marriage
percentage

9%

Average Vulnerability Score

28/100

Average Government Response Score

AAA

AA

A

BBB

BB

B

CCC

CC

C

D

Regional Findings

93

Europe and Central Asia covers 51 countries across the subregions ofCentral and Western Asia, Eastern Europe and Northern, Southern, andWestern Europe. Covering 12.4 percent of the world’s population, withinthese subregions there is broad variation and diversity in terms of people,
culture, history, and levels of development. This regional study summarises
a longer set of findings, which can be found in the Global Slavery Index:
Europe and Central Asia Report.

Prevalence within Europe andCentral Asia
On any given day in 2016, an estimated 3.6 million men,
women, and children were living in modern slavery inEurope and Central Asia. This region had a prevalenceof 3.9 people in modern slavery for every 1,000 people in
the region.
When considering the forms of modern slavery, the rateof forced labour (3.6 per 1,000 people) was higher than
the rate of forced marriage (0.4 per 1,000 people). The
prevalence of forced marriage was the lowest of all theworld’s regions. A little over a third of victims of forced
labour exploitation were held in debt bondage (36 percent),
with a higher proportion of men trapped through debt.

The region also accounted for 14 percent of forced sexual
exploitation worldwide.
Within the region, Turkmenistan, Belarus, and Macedonia
are the countries with the highest prevalence of modern
slavery, while Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine have the highest
absolute number and account for over one-third (39percent) of the victims in the region.
These regional figures, while important, should beinterpreted cautiously given the gaps and limitations of datain key regions. For example, there are numerous reportsof forced marriages in Central Asia but few surveys on theissue have been conducted there.11 This contributes to lower
rates of forced marriage than may be the case in this region.

TABLE 19
Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country, Europe and Central Asia

Regional
rankCountry

Estimated prevalence(victims per
1,000 population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

1

Turkmenistan*

11.2

62,0005,565,000

2Belarus10.9

103,000

9,486,000

3

Macedonia, the former Yugoslav
Republic of

8.7

18,0002,079,000

4Greece7.9

89,00011,218,000

5Albania

6.9

20,0002,923,000

6

Turkey6.5

509,000

78,271,000

7Ukraine6.4

286,000

44,658,000

8Croatia

6.0

25,0004,236,000

9Montenegro

5.9

4,000

628,000

10

Lithuania

5.8

17,0002,932,000

11

Russia5.5

794,000

143,888,000

12

Moldova, Republic of

5.5

22,0004,066,000

13

Armenia

5.3

16,0002,917,000

14Uzbekistan*

5.2

160,000

30,976,000

94

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 19 continued.
Regional
rankCountry

15

Tajikistan*

Estimated prevalence(victims per
1,000 population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

4.5

39,0008,549,000

16

Bulgaria

4.5

32,0007,177,000

17

Azerbaijan*

4.5

43,0009,617,000

18

Georgia

4.3

17,0003,952,000

19

Romania

4.3

86,00019,877,000

20

Cyprus4.2

5,000

1,161,000

21

Kazakhstan*

4.2

75,00017,750,000

22

Kyrgyzstan*

4.1

24,0005,865,000

23

Kosovo4.0

8,000

1,905,000

24

Latvia3.9

8,000

1,993,00025Israel3.9

31,0008,065,000

26

Hungary

3.7

36,0009,784,000

27

Estonia

3.6

5,000

1,315,000

28

Bosnia and Herzegovina

3.4

12,0003,536,000

29

Poland3.4

128,000

38,265,000

30

Serbia3.3

30,0008,851,000

31

Slovakia

2.9

16,0005,439,000

32

Czech Republic

2.9

31,00010,604,000

33

Portugal

2.5

26,00010,418,000

34

Italy

2.4

145,000

59,504,000

35

Spain

2.3

105,000

46,398,000

36

Slovenia

2.2

5,000

2,075,000

37

Iceland2.1<1,000330,000

38

United Kingdom

2.1

136,000

65,397,000

39

Germany2.0

167,000

81,708,000

40Belgium

2.0

23,00011,288,000

41France2.0

129,000

64,457,00042

Norway1.8

9,000

5,200,000

43

Netherlands

1.8

30,00016,938,000

44Austria

1.7

15,0008,679,000

45

Switzerland

1.7

14,0008,320,000

46

Ireland

1.7

8,000

4,700,000

47

Finland

1.7

9,000

5,482,000

48

Denmark

1.6

9,000

5,689,000

49

Sweden1.6

15,0009,764,000

50

Luxembourg

1.5<1,000567,000*Substantial gaps in data exist for the Central and East Asia subregions where, with the exception of Mongolia, surveys cannot be conducted for reasons suchas (i) survey is only delivered face-to-face, (ii) survey is delivered only in the main language which many migrant workers do not speak, or (iii) national authorities
would not, or were unlikely to, consent to the module on modern slavery. Unlike several countries in Western Europe where no surveys were conducted,
none of the countries in these subregions were identified as sites of exploitation by respondents in the 48 countries where surveys were implemented.

Regional Findings

95

Vulnerability within Europe
and Central Asia
FIGURE 8
Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Europe and Central Asia

49.3

Governance issues
31.1

Lack of basic needs

32.3

Inequality
Disenfranchised groups

34.0

Effects of conflict

32.4

Overallweighted average

46.1
0

20

40

Countries in Europe and Central Asia scored consistently
well on vulnerability measures across all five dimensions,which reflects the generally higher average GDP per capita
for this region. Interestingly, Europe and Central Asia
performed relatively poorly on the disenfranchised groups
dimension of vulnerability, which may reflect increasing

60

80

100

anxiety over the refugee and migrant crises (Figure 8).
On this dimension, scores ranged from a high of 60 percent
in Poland to a low of two percent in Iceland. Overall, thehighest vulnerability score across all dimensions wasin Turkmenistan (58 percent) and the lowest was in
Denmark (one percent).

TABLE 20
Estimated vulnerability to modern slavery by country, Europe and Central Asia

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
average

21.5

31.4

32.6

15.9

58.1

67.4

30.9

32.8

27.8

30.1

55.8

54.0

15.9

46.4

39.0

62.2

54.4

GovernanceissuesLack ofbasic needs

80.2

Tajikistan
UkraineCountry
Turkmenistan

Russia

59.3

13.5

38.6

34.1

51.9

51.6

Turkey

47.0

22.2

47.0

48.6

47.9

51.6

Azerbaijan

60.3

21.2

23.9

35.7

32.5

47.8

Uzbekistan

71.7

20.3

32.6

9.0

18.0

47.5

Belarus

64.9

16.7

23.9

39.4

20.8

47.3

Bosnia and Herzegovina

52.0

16.4

31.7

50.7

34.1

46.4

Macedonia, the former Yugoslav
Republic of

48.4

17.4

42.5

50.6

27.3

45.6

Albania

46.0

20.7

44.3

48.4

27.0

45.2

Kosovo

53.1

16.0

39.3

49.7

12.0

43.8

Armenia

51.1

18.9

33.8

46.3

22.1

43.6

Kazakhstan

60.4

14.5

25.1

38.2

19.5

43.3

Kyrgyzstan

49.6

19.7

35.4

42.6

23.2

42.8

Moldova, Republic of

42.0

22.9

35.3

58.3

18.1

41.6

Georgia

41.5

19.3

33.9

43.9

31.4

39.2

Greece

38.5

14.4

36.4

56.0

23.6

37.1

96

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 20 continued.

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
average

19.1

27.5

48.5

38.6

36.4

39.4

15.0

37.4

50.9

18.3

35.8

39.1

15.2

31.6

40.9

27.5

33.9

35.8

19.5

32.6

52.0

16.1

33.9

Croatia

35.7

20.2

34.1

48.3

12.2

32.7

Bulgaria

33.0

14.7

43.3

44.1

17.4

31.3

Estonia

35.2

13.7

27.4

52.2

12.4

29.2

Italy

31.7

14.4

45.4

31.0

19.3

28.3

GovernanceissuesLack ofbasic needs

Israel35.8Montenegro
SerbiaRomania

Country

Slovakia

29.9

15.1

29.9

51.2

14.2

27.2

Lithuania

29.2

15.4

35.6

46.3

9.7

26.2

Latvia

31.7

15.9

23.8

44.0

10.3

24.6

Poland

24.5

13.7

27.5

59.6

13.6

24.4

Hungary

23.9

14.8

32.9

48.3

15.5

23.6

Slovenia

22.4

16.6

30.6

45.6

6.4

20.1

Cyprus

24.5

16.7

32.6

29.7

10.1

19.1

Czech Republic

25.1

13.9

21.0

37.1

18.2

19.1

France

17.3

15.4

29.4

21.2

28.5

15.3

Belgium

20.0

15.0

29.9

19.3

12.3

13.1

Spain

17.2

18.3

33.5

15.1

14.2

12.8

United Kingdom

15.9

15.6

25.1

12.4

27.8

11.1

Germany

15.9

15.0

22.8

15.7

24.7

10.4

Ireland

17.2

17.0

24.3

10.9

20.1

10.4

Portugal

12.2

15.6

31.7

20.7

9.7

8.5

Luxembourg

17.7

13.7

24.5

12.1

14.3

8.4

Finland

18.6

16.0

15.0

17.8

11.2

8.2

Netherlands

12.8

13.6

26.0

16.0

12.2

6.1

Norway

15.7

17.8

13.1

9.4

10.8

4.5

Sweden

10.2

17.0

17.4

13.0

18.3

4.3

Iceland

20.6

11.7

21.1

4.1

1.8

4.2

Austria

12.6

12.2

18.2

23.5

3.1

3.4

Switzerland

11.6

12.2

15.2

20.1

4.9

1.5

Denmark

8.7

15.3

13.8

15.2

12.5

1.0

Regional Findings

97

A picture taken in 2011 shows irregular migrants from Burkina Faso working
in Foggia, southern Italy during the tomato harvest. Workers in the agriculture
sector in Italy frequently face exploitative working conditions, ranging fromviolation of contract provisions through to severe abuse and forced labour.
These workers experience forms of exploitation and abuse, including notreceiving adequate remuneration and being controlled by middlemen or labour
brokers, known as caporali. Rather than being paid a salary, these men canbe paid by the hour or by the number of crates they fill (shown in the image).
The second option is illegal in Italy, but many migrants choose this means of
payment so they may earn more money, up to 40 Euros per day. The standard
salary, working 10-12 hours a day, is around 20 Euros. Regardless of salary,these workers then have to pay the caporali for transportation, food, and water.
Photo credit: Alessando Penso

98

Global Slavery Index 2018

Government responses
within Europe and Central Asia
While there is evident variation at the subregional level,
overall the Europe and Central Asia region has thestrongest response to modern slavery, scoring an average
BB rating. In Europe in particular, governments are generally
characterised by high levels of political will and resources.
These countries also have multiple regional bodies whichhold them to account and monitor their responses. For
example, the European Union’s proactive approach to
tackling modern slavery means that Europe leads theway in engaging with business as well as taking steps toinvestigate public procurement.

Generally speaking, governments have improved their
responses in recent years by taking more steps tostrengthen their legislation, provide protective services
for victims, establish coordination and accountability
mechanisms, and respond to risk. Countries in Central
Asia have also taken steps to tackle state-imposed forced
labour in recent years, as shown by a reduction in forced
labour in Tajikistan and the willingness of the governmentof Uzbekistan to engage with the ILO.12 More needs tobe done, however, to reduce rates of forced labour in
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan so that their responses
prevent mass mobilisation of the population in the annual
cotton harvest.

TABLE 21
Movements in government response rating for Europe
and Central Asia 2016 to 2018
Country

2016
RatingChangein rating2018
RatingNetherlands

A

A

United Kingdom

BBB

BBB*

SwedenBBB

BBBBelgium

BBB

BBB

Croatia

BBB

BBB

Spain

BBB

BBB

NorwayBBBBBBPortugal

BBB

BBB

Montenegro

BB

BBB

CyprusBB

BBB

Macedonia, theformer Yugoslav
Republic of

BB

BBB

AustriaBBB

BBB

Georgia

BB

BBB

Italy

B

BBB

SerbiaBB

BBBFranceBB

BBB

LatviaBB

BBB

Switzerland

BB

BBB

AlbaniaBB

BB

Slovenia

BB

BB

Lithuania

BB

BB

DenmarkBB

BB

HungaryBB

BB

FinlandBB

BB

IrelandBB

BB

GermanyBB

BB

Bulgaria

B

BB

Country

2016
RatingChangein rating2018
Rating

Moldova, Republic
of

BB

BB

Greece

CCC

BB

KosovoB

BB

PolandBB

BB

ArmeniaB

BB

Slovakia

B

BB

UkraineB

BB

Czech Republic

BB

BB

IsraelB

BB

Estonia

CCC

B

Bosnia andHerzegovina

B

B

Azerbaijan

CCC

B

TurkeyB

B

Iceland

B

B

CCC

B

Romania

B

B

Kyrgyzstan

CCC

B

Belarus

CCC

B

Tajikistan

CCC

CCC

Kazakhstan

CCC

CCC

Uzbekistan

CC

CCC

Turkmenistan

CC

CC

RussiaCC

CC

Luxembourg

Malta****Countries that scored -1 on a negative indicator could not score above
a BBB rating**Not rated in 2016 Global Slavery Index***Included for the first time in 2018, therefore a rating is not provided.
All data are available via the Global Slavery Index website

Regional Findings

99

TABLE 22
Government response rating, milestone percentage, and total score by country, Europe and Central Asia
RatingA

Country

Supportsurvivors

Criminaljustice

Coordination

Addressrisk

SupplychainsTOTAL
75.2

Netherlands

72.2

72.2

75.0

92.9

36.7

BBB*

United Kingdom

82.0

73.9

62.5

73.8

26.7

71.5

BBB

Sweden

73.1

64.4

81.3

73.8

18.3

68.7

BBB

Belgium

72.2

53.9

87.5

73.8

36.7

68.3

BBB

Croatia

77.0

78.3

56.3

69.0

18.3

68.2

BBB

Spain

79.3

65.6

62.5

73.8

0.0

66.9

BBB

Norway

68.1

82.8

56.3

73.8

10.0

66.8

BBB

Portugal

62.6

69.4

68.8

83.3

8.3

66.3

BBB

Montenegro

79.3

70.0

56.3

61.9

0.0

64.0

BBB

Cyprus

68.1

77.8

56.3

61.9

18.3

63.4

BBB

Macedonia, the former Yugoslav
Republic of

70.4

67.2

75.0

61.9

0.0

63.2

BBB

Austria

72.8

61.1

68.8

61.9

18.3

63.1

BBB

Georgia

74.1

63.9

56.3

69.0

0.0

62.8

BBB

Italy

58.3

78.9

50.0

83.3

26.7

62.0

BBB

Serbia

63.9

75.0

56.3

69.0

0.0

61.9

BBB

France

42.4

71.7

93.8

71.4

18.3

61.5

BBB

Latvia

47.0

61.7

93.8

71.4

18.3

60.9

BBB

Switzerland

66.7

60.6

37.5

81.0

0.0

60.0

BB

Albania

72.8

63.3

68.8

66.7

0.0

59.9

BB

Slovenia

60.4

57.8

56.3

73.8

18.3

59.6

BB

Lithuania

46.3

62.8

68.8

78.6

18.3

59.1

BB

Denmark

62.6

56.1

50.0

69.0

28.3

58.6

BB

Hungary

64.8

47.2

56.3

71.4

18.3

58.2

BB

Finland

53.7

49.4

81.3

71.4

8.3

57.9

BB

Ireland

65.9

42.2

62.5

69.0

18.3

57.7

BB

Germany

61.7

57.8

56.3

57.1

36.7

57.1

BB

Bulgaria

59.8

49.4

56.3

66.7

18.3

55.8

BB

Moldova, Republic of

58.5

61.1

62.5

59.5

0.0

55.7

BB

Greece

68.5

66.1

43.8

45.2

18.3

55.1

BB

Kosovo

66.7

62.7

37.5

59.5

0.0

54.8

BB

Poland

53.3

42.2

68.8

69.0

8.3

53.9

BB

Armenia

54.6

51.1

56.3

66.7

0.0

53.2

BB

Slovakia

48.7

52.2

62.5

64.3

18.3

53.2

BB

Ukraine

65.7

46.1

62.5

66.7

0.0

53.0

BB

Czech Republic

47.0

54.4

81.3

50.0

28.3

52.9

BB

Israel

57.2

56.1

43.8

61.9

0.0

52.1

B

Estonia

41.3

36.1

43.8

81.0

18.3

48.8

B

Bosnia and Herzegovina

60.2

47.8

25.0

76.2

0.0

48.6

B

Azerbaijan

28.0

71.7

62.5

59.5

0.0

48.2

B

Turkey

66.7

57.2

37.5

33.3

0.0

47.4

B

Iceland

48.7

54.4

37.5

52.4

8.3

46.4
45.4

B

Luxembourg

47.4

33.9

68.8

50.0

8.3

B

Romania

53.3

52.2

50.0

42.9

18.3

43.9

B

Kyrgyzstan

33.0

48.3

56.3

61.9

0.0

40.9

B

Belarus

48.9

27.8

37.5

66.7

0.0

40.1

CCC

Tajikistan

38.9

36.1

43.8

40.5

0.0

33.0

CCC

Kazakhstan

42.8

50.0

37.5

26.2

0.0

32.8

CCC

Uzbekistan

30.2

33.9

31.3

64.3

0.0

30.4

CC

Turkmenistan

17.8

40.0

31.3

61.9

0.0

27.1

CC

Russia

17.0

32.2

37.5

40.5

0.0

20.7

No
ratingMalta

13*Indicates where a country could not score above a BBB. These countries have received a negative rating for policies that hinder their response
to modern slavery.

100

Global Slavery Index 201806 IMPORTING

RISK

Importing risk. G20 countries and import of products at riskof modern slavery
Why focus on the G20?
Understanding the risk imported by G20 countries
What does the analysis tell us?
What are G20 governments doing?
Recommendations: What should governments
and businesses be doing?
Maps of top 5 at-risk products imported by G20 countries-- Argentina-- Australia-- Brazil-- Canada-- China-- France-- Germany-- India-- Indonesia-- Italy-- Japan-- Mexico-- Russia-- Saudi Arabia-- South Korea-- Turkey-- United Kingdom-- United States

102
102
103
104
107
118
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137

A woman shops at a supermarket in the United States.
The US Department of Labor list of products producedby forced labour includes consumer goods such ascocoa, sugar and fish from certain countries.
Photo credit: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

Importing Risk

101

102

Global Slavery Index 2018

IMPORTING RISK.

G20 countries and import of products at risk of modern slavery

There is a clear, compelling, and urgent need to find solutions to themany complex factors that enable modern slavery to persist. To date,most research on modern slavery has focused on the countries where theexploitation is taking place, which typically are the world’s least developed
countries and particularly those that are heavily impacted by known risk
factors, such as conflict, failure of rule of law, mass displacement, andendemic discrimination. While this focus is important, the realities of global
trade and commerce make it inevitable that products generated by modern
slavery will travel across borders and into higher income countries where theprevalence of modern slavery is low.

Accordingly, in this chapter we examine the issue ofmodern slavery not from the perspective of where thecrime is perpetrated, but rather from where the productsof the crime are sold and consumed, with a specific focus
on G20 countries. The resulting analysis presents a stark
contrast in terms of both risk and responsibility. As theresearch in this Index confirms, citizens in G20 countries
enjoy relatively low levels of vulnerability to this crime
within their borders and many aspects of their government
responses to preventing this crime are comparatively
strong. Nonetheless, businesses and governments in
G20 countries are importing products that are at risk ofmodern slavery, with hardly any effort being applied bygovernments to regulate the labour conditions involved intheir production.
This chapter draws on research to identify and validate ashort list of products at risk of modern slavery, and thenmaps out the extent to which these products are imported by
G20 countries1. It is important to note that no single productis completely the result of forced labour. However, in theabsence of information on the proportion that is tainted, ouranalysis shows the potential reach of modern slavery into
countries considered to have low levels of vulnerability andcomparatively strong responses. The methodology behind
this research can be found in Appendix 3.

Why focus on the G20?
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights(UNGPs) were the first international reference framework
on human rights in the context of business. Adopted by the
UN Human Rights Council in 2011, the UNGPs placed on
the international agenda the issue of identifying potential
adverse impacts on human rights by business activity.2 The
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and in particular
Target 8.7, which calls for effective measures to end forced
labour, modern slavery, and human trafficking, as well
as child labour in all its forms,3 has further contributed tothe push within the international community to eradicate
modern slavery, including through initiatives and policies
to ensure public and business supply chains are free fromthis crime.
While initiatives like the SDGs apply to all countries,
individual countries have different levels of impact andinfluence on the global economy. The G20 countries
collectively account for nearly 80 percent of world trade
and about 85 percent of the world’s GDP.4 Two of the G20's
member countries, China5 and the United States (US),6 are
the world’s largest exporting and importing economies
respectively. While some G20 countries have a focus onmodern slavery abroad through their aid programs, it iscritical to examine their efforts to address modern slavery
through economic and trade measures.

Importing Risk

In 2017, G20 leaders committed to fostering human rights
due diligence in corporate operations and supply chains inline with internationally recognised standards such as the
UNGPs.7 This includes working toward establishing policy
frameworks and National Action Plans on business andhuman rights to effectively eliminate forced labour, humantrafficking, and modern slavery.8 Given the economic power
and influence of the G20, this represents a massive step
forward on this issue.

Understanding the risk imported
by G20 countries
There are two important factors to understanding thetransfer of risk from source countries to consumer countries.
The first is to identify which globally-traded products arelikely to be at risk of being produced using modern slavery,
and the second is to match them with their trade value.
In this analysis, we focus on the at risk products that areimported into G20 countries and their value.
We created a shortlist of 15 products that appeared mostfrequently in the 2016 US Department of Labor list of goods
produced by forced labour.9 To ensure we were using themost up to date information, we validated every product on103

our initial shortlist through our own research (which resulted
in some additions and deletions), and supplemented it with
our own data on cocoa and fishing (see Appendix 3). This
resulted in the products and source countries listed in Figure 1.
It is important to note that the quality and level of available
information about both the nature of modern slavery andscale of the problem in these sectors varies widely. In somecases, it is heavily affected by the ability of researchers
to validate information. For example, the information onmodern slavery in cocoa production is based on random
sample surveys undertaken in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in
2017, so the information is recent. This reflects the fact thatthe governments of these countries enable and facilitate
research. In contrast, the information on the situation in
the North Korean coal mines can be obtained only fromdefectors from that country, which remains entirely shut off
from independent research scrutiny. Equally, some of theresearch points to widescale problems (such as the researchon the Thai fishing industry), whereas in other cases it is lessclear if problems are widescale or isolated, as there is lessinformation available. For example, information on forced
labour in Chinese electronics manufacturing is based mostly
on isolated reports of labour abuses in specific companies,
as academic and other independent research on forced
labour in China is very scarce. The process used to develop
the list contained in Figure 1 is written up in Appendix 3,along with the references which identify the products as
being at-risk.

FIGURE 1
List of products at risk of forced labour by source countries
COTTON: Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
BRICKS: Afghanistan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan
GARMENTS – APPAREL & CLOTHING ACCESSORIES: Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam
CATTLE: Bolivia, Brazil, Niger, Paraguay
SUGARCANE: Brazil, Dominican Republic
GOLD: Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, Peru
CARPETS: India, Pakistan
COAL: North Korea, Pakistan
FISH: Ghana, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia10
RICE: India, Myanmar
TIMBER: Brazil, North Korea, Peru
BRAZIL NUTS / CHESTNUTS: Bolivia
COCOA: Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana
DIAMONDS: Angola
ELECTRONICS – LAPTOPS, COMPUTERS, & MOBILE PHONES: China, Malaysia

104

Global Slavery Index 2018

We then examined trade data for imports11 into the G20
countries to identify the top five products imported by eachcountry according to US$ value. The resulting list of top
five products across all G20 states includes the following:›› Cotton›› Apparel and clothing
accessories›› Cattle›› Sugarcane›› Gold›› Carpets›› Coal›› Fish›› Rice›› Timber›› Cocoa›› Diamonds›› Laptops, computers,
and mobile phones

The results of this research are set out in Appendix 3 andvisually presented in the maps at the back of this chapter.
As the 2017 Global Estimates of Modern Slavery haveshown, most forced labour exploitation occurs in domestic
work, construction, manufacturing, as well as agriculture,
forestry, and fishing.12 The products identified on our list (seeFigure 1) overlap with the sectors that the Global Estimateshave identified as where most forced labour can be found.
The Global Estimates also illustrated that female and malevictims of labour exploitation are distributed differently
across the various sectors. Whereas male victims were
mostly found in the mining, manufacturing, construction,
and agriculture sectors, female victims of forced labour
exploitation were more likely to be in the accommodationand food services industry, and in domestic work.

What does the analysis tell us?
G20 countries are importing risk of modern slavery on a
massive scale. Collectively, G20 countries are importing
US$354 billion worth of at-risk products annually. This
ranges from a minimum of US$739 million for Argentina, toa maximum of US$144 billion for the United States. While
the strength of the supporting evidence of modern slavery
in various products certainly varies, for most products theevidence is clear and compelling. In these cases, it is almost
certain that governments and businesses are effectively
importing and trading the proceeds of crime. The mostclear-cut example of this is the import of coal by China fromthe Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).
China imports nearly a billion US dollars’ worth of coal from
North Korea, amounting to around 98 percent of North
Korea’s total exports of coal.13 The process of digging coal isconsidered a “3D” or dirty, dangerous, and degrading job inNorth Korea, and the status of being a coal miner is inherited
rather than a choice. In recent interviews conducted with asample of North Korean defectors,14 one interviewee notedthat "in North Korea, if your parents work in the coal mines,
so will you.” He reported he was not paid for this work andhe was not free to leave or quit. He had also never seen oreven heard about an employment contract for the work he
was doing at the coal mine. This defector also noted that “ifyou’re found unemployed you’ll be punished at the labour
training camp.”

The evidence of widescale abuses in the fishing industry
is also mounting. Our analysis of risk in global fisheries
suggests that of the top 20 fishing countries (by volume
of catch) fish imported from China, Japan, Russia, Spain,
South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand are at risk of modern
slavery.15 Our literature review found firm evidence ofreported cases of labour abuse or trafficking in the last
five years for all these countries except Spain, and forIndonesia as well. Inland fisheries in Ghana, primarily in
the Lake Volta region, were found to have a high prevalenceof children that were trafficked into forced labour.16 Importdata confirm wider-scale imports of fish from the at-risksource countries of China, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Russia,
South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand into a range of G20
countries, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
China, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico,
Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Russia, the UK, and the US (seeTable 3 in Appendix 3).
Cocoa from Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana is another productthat may be tainted by modern slavery. Our own random
sample surveys conducted in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana
in 2017 identified cases of modern slavery in the cocoa
sector in both countries. Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire are theworld’s two largest cocoa producers and their cocoa iswidely traded.17 Cocoa was identified to be within the top
five products by US$ value for 12 of the 18 G20 countries
represented in this chapter.
The government of Brazil has recently been ordered by
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to pay US$5
million to 128 former farm workers who were enslaved on a
Brazilian cattle farm between 1988 and 2000.18 This is only
one prominent case among many others in recent years
that support the widescale existence of modern slavery inthe cattle industry in Brazil. Cattle from Brazil is one of the
top five imports of at-risk products in Italy and Russia.
Research into the cotton industry has provided evidence
that forced labour is a common phenomenon in someCentral Asian countries. In Kazakhstan, migrant workers
have been found to be affected by modern slavery during
the cotton harvest,19 whereas in Turkmenistan adults fromthe public and private sectors are forced to pick cotton
during the annual harvest and farmers are forced to fulfil
state-established cotton production quotas.20 In Tajikistan,forced labour of adults and children has allegedly decreased
over the last few years21 but may still be an issue.22 For
Uzbekistan, there is more conflicting evidence, with some
reports strongly linking the Uzbek cotton industry to forced
labour23 while other evidence provided by the International
Labour Organization (ILO) suggests that cotton pickers
are mostly recruited voluntarily.24 Turkey is the one G20
country that imports significant amounts of cotton from thosecountries. Cotton imports by Turkey total more than US$200
million from Turkmenistan, more than US$30 million fromTajikistan, and nearly US$11 million from Uzbekistan.
Another widely imported product across all G20 states istimber from Brazil. Investigations by Repórter Brasil, one of
the largest Brazilian NGOs operating in the modern slavery
space, has revealed that workers are widely exploitedImporting Risk

across the Brazilian timber industry. The investigations
also link two US-based companies to timber bought from
Brazilian traders that sourced their products from Brazilian
sawmills that allegedly used modern slavery.25 Large
quantities of Brazilian timber are imported by Argentina,
France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and the US.
The garment and textile industry in India, particularly inSouthern India states such as Tamil Nadu, is also grapplingwith extensive labour exploitation. Garments are one of themost widely traded and most “valuable” product categories
identified on our list and are represented in the top fiveproducts of every one of the G20 countries. The three
countries with the highest-value garment imports from
India are the US (US$3.9 billion), UK (US$1.9 billion) andGermany (US$1.4 billion).
Electronic goods from Malaysia are also implicated in modern
slavery. Research in 2012 and 2014 into the electronics

105

sector in Malaysia by the US-based NGO Verité revealed
widespread forced labour in the industry.26 All G20 countries
imported electronic goods (laptops, computers, and mobile
phones) from Malaysia on an enormous scale, led by China(US$1.6 billion) and the US (US$1.5 billion).
By unravelling the trade flows and focusing on products
at risk of modern slavery that are imported by the top
economies, it becomes clear that even the wealthiest
countries have a clear and immediate responsibility for
responding to modern slavery both domestically andbeyond their borders. Developed economies are exposedto the risk of modern slavery not only when this crime isperpetrated within their national borders but also whenthat risk is effectively transferred to them via the products
they import. Policymakers, businesses, and consumers
must become aware of this risk and take responsibility for it.

Aakash, 24, from Nepal, trapped in debt bondage in the electronics industry in Malaysia“I have to work for three years just to pay off the money I borrowed to get this job. I paid
$1600 to a recruitment agent in Nepal at 48% interest. I feel terrible because of this hugeloan. I know our earnings are below the minimum wage, but what can we do about it? If
you are sick, they don’t care. They don’t want to let you return home. If you want to leave
before the end of your three year contract you have to pay three months salary. If there
was no fine, I’d go home right now.”
Photog credit: Pete Pattisson for The Guardian

106

Global Slavery Index 2018

Importing Risk

What are G20 governments doing?
The Global Slavery Index assesses governments on a
range of indicators of good practices, including what
they are doing to stop the sourcing of goods or services
linked to modern slavery (Milestone 5). In terms of results
for this milestone in the Government Response Index,
G20 countries achieve an average score of 11 percent,reflecting a range of zero (Argentina, Australia, Canada,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Saudi
Arabia, South Korea, and Turkey) to 65 percent (UnitedStates) (Figure 2). Australia has announced it will introduce
supply chain transparency laws in the second half of 2018.
FIGURE 2
Results from Government Response Index to indicators
measuring government efforts to stop sourcing goods
and services produced by forced labour (Milestone 5, %)Brazil

26.7

China

18.3

France18.3

Germany

36.7

Italy

26.7

United Kingdom

26.7

United States

65

Average

11.5

Argentina, Australia, Canada, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia,
South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Korea, Republic of (South Korea), Turkey
0
0

20

40

60

80

Governments stop sourcing goods and services produced by forced labour (Milestone 5, %)Brazil. Men work at disembarking loads of cocoa
beans and pile these onto a truck at the port of Ilhéusin Bahia, Brazil. The material arriving from the Côte
d’Ivoire will be used in the production of chocolate in
the factories located in the south of Bahia.
Photo credit: Joá Souza/Brazil Photo Press/
LatinContent/Getty Images

100

107

108

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 1 presents at a glance what governments could or should be doing alongside which policies G20 governments haveso far implemented.
TABLE 1
Summary of government responses to prevent the sourcing of goods or services linked to modern slavery(Milestone 5)
Policies that governments should be implementing

G20 governments which have implemented such policies

IMPORTS
Policies that prevent the import of goods and services madewith forced labour.

United States

Section 307 of the US Tariff Act of 1930.

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT
Guidelines for public procurement officials to prevent use ofmodern slavery in public goods.

Germany 	Guidelines for procurement officials are provided
through the “Municipality Compass.”
United States 	Guidelines are available under Executive Order13627 (2012).

Public procurement policies that explicitly prohibit usingbusinesses suspected of using forced labour / purchasing
products that were made using forced labour.

Brazil 	“Slave Labour Dirty List” prevents thosebusinesses listed on it from tendering for public
contracts.
France 	Ordinance no. 2015-899 of 23 July 2015
relating to public procurement contracts and its
implementing Decree no. 2016-360 of 25 March
2016 (transposition of EU Procurement Directive
2014/24/EU).
Germany 	Part IV of the Restraints of Competition Act(transposition of EU Procurement Directive
2014/24/EU).
Italy 	Legislative Decree no. 50/2016 (transposition of EU
Procurement Directive 2014/24/EU).
United Kingdom 	Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (England andWales); Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations
2015 (transposition of EU Procurement Directive
2014/24/EU).
United States 	Executive Order 13627 (2012) and Executive Order
13126 (1999).

Annual reports on government action to prevent use offorced labour in public procurement are produced andpublicly available.

None

Government provides training to public procurement officials
on modern slavery.

United States	Training for officials is available under the
Executive Order 13627.

Government takes remedial action where forced labour has
been discovered.

United States	The government is fully implementing Section 307
of the US Tariff Act of 1930 which allows the seizureof goods believed to be produced with forced
labour.
China	The government took remedial action whencases of unpaid wages were discovered in public
contracts.

BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINSPolicies require businesses to report on their actions tominimise risk of forced labour in their supply chain.

Brazil 		National Pact for Eradication of Slave Labour(voluntary initiative); ”Slave Labour Dirty List” (List
Suja do Trabalho Escravo).
France 		Corporate Duty of Vigilance law; Amendments to
the Law on Accounting PZE No. 51 (transpositionof EU Directive 2014/95/EU).
Germany 		CSR Directive Implementation Act (transpositionof EU Directive 2014/95/EU).
Italy 		Legislative Decree no. 254, 30 December 2016,(transposition of EU Directive 2014/95/EU).
United Kingdom 		Section 54, UK Modern Slavery Act 2015.
United States 		California Transparency in Supply Chains Act 2010.

Importing Risk

109

Table 1 continued.
Policies that governments should be implementing

G20 governments which have implemented such policies

Government creates a public list of businesses that havebeen found to tolerate modern slavery in their supply chains.

Brazil 		“Slave Labour Dirty List” (List Suja do Trabalho
Escravo).
China 		Measures for Publicising Material Violations ofLabour Security; Measures for the Credit Rating
Evaluation of Enterprises in Labour Security
Compliance (not specific to modern slavery).

Company directors who fail to prevent modern slavery and failto undertake reasonable due diligence in first tier supply chain
can be criminally prosecuted.

None

OTHER INITIATIVES
Government identifies risk sectors and takes action to workwith these sectors to eradicate modern slavery.

Italy 		"To work above board" (Campagna informativa"Lavorare alla luce del sole") (agriculture).
Germany 		 Textiles Partnership (textiles).
United Kingdom 		Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority(agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering, andassociated packaging).
United States 		Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act (conflictminerals: gold, tin, tungsten, and tantalum).

Responsible investment reporting requirement for investment
funds and banks headquartered in the country to ensure thatinvestments do not support modern slavery.

None

As Figure 2 and Table 1 show, G20 governments are taking
steps in the right direction, but there is still much more work
to be done. Among the various potential policy responses toreduce the risk of modern slavery in product supply chains
and industries, the following sections will focus on threeareas of government responses: (1) imports, (2) procurement:
government and business, and (3) ethical recruitment.

Imports
In the US, Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 prohibits
the import of goods produced or manufactured, wholly
or in part, by forced or child labour.27 These goods canbe prevented from entering the US and can be seized by
the federal government. The importing entities can also
face criminal investigation.28 As of November 2017, the US
Customs and Border Protection list of Withhold Release
Orders, which essentially blocks goods from entering thecountry under suspicion that they were made with forced
labour, contained 42 entries.29 The US is the only country
in the world that has such legislation in place.
While not a government response per se, it is relevant
to consider the role of sanctions in proscribing certain
products for import. In the international arena, the United
Nations (UN) has been imposing sanctions on North Korea
for several years, with three rounds of sanctions adopted
in 2017 by the UN Security Council directed at cutting off
revenue to North Korea’s military program.30 The latest UN
sanctions passed under Resolution 2397 (2017) imposed
restrictions on North Korea’s oil, machinery, industrial

equipment, and metals imports as well as on its metal,
agricultural, and labour exports.31 The US government
imposed its own sanctions against seven North Korean
individuals and three entities over human rights abuses,
including forced labour, in October 2017.32
The impact of sanctions is often controversial, becauseeven though sanctions are applied to discourage humanrights abuses, an unintended side effect can include
exacerbating suffering among vulnerable populations.33 In
line with this, it has been noted that the internationalsanctions imposed on North Korea are further exacerbating
the human rights situation in North Korea by impeding thedelivery of humanitarian aid to North Koreans in need.34

Public procurement
Public spending significantly contributes to the global
economy and the G20 governments can thereby exercise
substantial influence over their suppliers and, in turn,over global supply chains. Across OECD countries, public
procurement accounts for about 12 percent of GDP on
average.35 Public procurement commitments under the World
Trade Organization’s Agreement on Public Procurement(GPA) have been estimated at around €1.3 trillion (US$1.6
trillion).36 Table 2 details which G20 governments have
implemented policies to minimise the risk of governmentspurchasing products tainted by forced labour.

110

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 2
G20 government responses on public procurement:
Status of laws to minimise the risk of modern slavery
in public supply chains
EnactedNot enacted

BrazilArgentina

FranceAustralia

Germany

Canada

Italy

China

United Kingdom

India

United StatesIndonesia

proposes to prevent modern slavery and to certify that no“prohibited” goods or services (including goods produced
through modern slavery) are being supplied in order toaccess government markets.38 These laws aim to ensure
all US government contracts are performed free of humantrafficking and forced labour.
In Brazil, the “Dirty List,” which publicises companies foundto be using modern slavery, is also used by public sector
companies and those listed are prevented from tenderingfor public contracts.39

Japan
MexicoRussiaSaudi Arabia
South Africa
Korea, Republic of (South
Korea)
TurkeyThe US, spending around US$500 billion in government
contracts annually,37 is leading the field in working towardslavery-free public supply chains. Executive Order13627 (2012) and Executive Order 13126 (1999) require
US government contractors to certify that they and theirsubcontractors are taking specific preventive measures
to detect and eliminate trafficking and forced labour intheir supply chains. High-value suppliers are also obliged
to create a compliance plan detailing how the supplier

The European Union (EU) has begun moving toward moresustainable and socially responsible public procurement.
In 2014, the EU Parliament passed Directive 2014/24/EU toencourage European countries to “buy social” by taking into
account social considerations in their public procurement
processes, albeit not particularly targeting supply
chains.40 Article 57 of Directive 2014/24/EU requires thatpublic authorities exclude a business from the procurement
or award procedure if it has been convicted by final
judgment for child labour or human trafficking. The Directive
also recommends integrating social considerations as partof the contract performance conditions, including asking
businesses to comply with the ILO core conventions, suchas Convention 29 on forced labour and Convention 182
on worst forms of child labour.41 The requirement of aconviction under these new EU rules sets a high bar, giventhat human rights abuses in supply chains rarely leadto criminal prosecutions, or are never even reported in
the first place.42 Although the requirements of the public
procurement directive are not as far-reaching as legislation,for instance, in the US they nevertheless put pressure on
European governments to move toward more ethical andsustainable public procurement. European countries wererequired to transpose the Directives into national law by
18 April 2016.43 The names of the domestic legislation andtransposition dates by the European members of the G20
are summarised in Table 3.44

TABLE 3National transposition of EU public procurement Directive 2014/24/EU in European G20 countries
FranceGermany

Italy

United Kingdom

Name of national
legislation

Ordinance no. 2015-899
of 23 July 2015 relating
to public
procurement contracts
and its implementing
Decree no. 2016-360 of
25 March 2016

Part IV of the Restraintsof Competition Act

Legislative Decree no.
50/2016

Public Contracts
Regulations 2015
(England and Wales)
Public Contracts(Scotland) Regulations
2015

Transposition date

March 2016

April 2016

April 2016

February 2015
(England and Wales)
December 2015
(Scotland)Importing Risk

111

Compulsory collective work consisting of cleaning the railway and picking the coal
which fell from a wagon. In North Korea both children and adults are mobilised for
unpaid 'communal labour' in agriculture, road building and construction.
Photo credit: Patrick Aventurier/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

In 2016, a private members' bill was introduced, among
other amendments, into the UK House of Lords by Baroness
Young that attempted to extend the reporting requirementin Section 54 of the 2015 Modern Slavery Act to include
all public authorities. After this bill was unsuccessful, asimilar, second private members' bill was introduced byBaroness Young in mid-2017, however, at the time of writing
it has not progressed to a second reading.45 While theseamendments were not passed, it clearly shows there is a
desire in the UK to hold government bodies to the same
reporting requirements as business.46
Germany has also implemented several other measuresdesigned to promote sustainable public procurement.
Since 2010, the Alliance for Sustainable Procurement
has brought together federal, state, and local authorities
to increase the percentage of sustainable goods andservices among purchases by public authorities.47 The
Sustainability Compass (Kompass Nachhaltigkeit) is an
information platform launched by the federal government
to provide information and guidance for German
public authorities on how to incorporate social andenvironmental sustainability criteria into their tendering
procedures.48 Public authorities can exclude economic
operators from participating in a tendering process at

any time if they are aware of any mandatory grounds for
exclusion which include human trafficking, as defined in
Article 2 of EU Directive 2011/36/EU.49
In 2013, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced
a new government strategy to revise federal procurement
arrangements and guidelines to ensure they assist in
identifying and addressing slavery in supply chains.50 The
subsequent Abbott government expressed support forthis idea but, to date, it is unclear what action was taken to
implement it.51 In March 2017, the Australian government
published the new Commonwealth Procurement Rules(CPRs), which replaced the 2014 version.52 One of the newchanges to the 2017 CPRs is Clause 10.18, which requiresthat officials must make reasonable enquiries to consider
the tenderer’s practices regarding labour regulations andethical employment practices.53 However, the new clausedoes not specifically mention modern slavery or humantrafficking. The final report on Establishing an AustralianModern Slavery Act by the Joint Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended
introducing a new requirement to ensure the Australian
government act as a model leader and procure goods andservices only from businesses that comply with the modern
slavery reporting requirement.54

112

Global Slavery Index 2018

Business supply chains
In the past two decades there has been a rapid growthin the number of voluntary initiatives focusing on basic
human rights standards and decent working conditions.
Typically, they are sector or regionally based, and driven
by a variety of stakeholders – governments, civil society,and businesses themselves – and sometimes include
certification schemes. However, over the past couple ofyears there has been a move away from voluntary initiatives
toward mandatory reporting laws, such as Section 54 of
the UK Modern Slavery Act, which help to create a levelplaying field for business and ensure that large enterprises
are focused on addressing the complex issue of modern
slavery in their global supply chains. Table 4 shows which
G20 countries have implemented legislation requiring
businesses to report on actions they take to eliminate
modern slavery from their supply chains.
TABLE 4
G20 government responses on business supply chaintransparency: Status of laws requiring business toreport on actions taken to minimise modern slavery
risk in supply chains
EnactedNot enacted

BrazilArgentina

FranceAustralia

Germany

Canada

Italy

China

United Kingdom

India

United StatesIndonesia
Japan
MexicoRussiaSaudi Arabia
South Africa
Korea, Republic of (South
Korea)
TurkeyThe UK Modern Slavery Act (MSA) has been described as a“game changer” for tackling modern slavery and requiringtransparency on modern slavery in supply chains. Section
54 of the MSA requires large businesses to publish anannual statement outlining what they do to ensure there
is no slavery within their own organisation or anywherein their supply chains. While the content of the statement
is not mandated, the UK Home Office provides guidance
for businesses on the reporting requirement of the MSA,
which was updated in October 201755 and applies to every
British or foreign organisation that does business in the
UK and has an annual turnover of more than £36 million(US$50.3 million56). Failure to disclose a statement could
result in injunctive proceedings against the organisationand continued resistance could result in unlimited civil fines.
Although the UK is celebrated for its genuine leadership on
modern slavery globally, the MSA has also drawn criticism,such as from those who point out that the government
has failed to produce a central list of companies that are
required to report. This, together with the rather minimal
reporting requirements (it is possible to release a statement
simply reporting that no action has been taken), makes it
difficult to hold companies to account.57
The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act (2010),
the world’s first mandatory reporting law, became effective
on 1 January 2012.58 While California remains the only
state in the US to have enacted supply chain transparency
legislation, it is itself the world’s sixth largest economy,
home to influential industries located in Silicon Valley and
Hollywood, and accordingly has enormous impact in the US
and globally.59 Businesses covered by the Act must publish
on their websites information about the efforts they maketo eradicate modern slavery from their direct supply chainsfor any tangible goods they offer for sale. However, the law
applies only to retail sellers and manufacturers (whereverincorporated) that do business in California and have global
annual revenues of more than US$100 million.60
In 2017, France adopted the Corporate Duty of Vigilance
law requiring mandatory due diligence for large
businesses.61 The law establishes an obligation for parent
companies to prepare a “vigilance” or due diligenceplan that directly and practically addresses impacts onenvironment, health and security, and human rights(including modern slavery). The scope of the new law
extends to all French companies that have more than 5,000
employees domestically or employ 10,000 employees
worldwide.62 The content of the plan as defined by the law
requires detailed mapping of risks, details of procedures
used to assess risks with suppliers, alert mechanisms tocollect risk information, and a monitoring scheme. Noncompliance with this law may result in court action requiring
compliance and/or requiring a business to compensate
victims who have suffered as a result of its non-compliance.
Initial drafts of the law had proposed civil fines for failure tocomply but these were contested and the fines were notincluded in the final version of the law, as passed. The law
will affect about 150 French businesses.63
In February 2017, the Australian Joint Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade conducted an
inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia
comparable to the UK MSA 2015.64 In August 2017, theAustralian government announced it will introduce
legislation that will require large businesses to reportannually on their actions taken to address modern
slavery.65 Four months later, the committee released its final
report, which recommended legislation that incorporates
mandatory supply chain reporting for business as well
as a domestic response to modern slavery in Australia,
led by an Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner. Other
recommendations included greater regulation of labour hire

Importing Risk

companies, measures to tackle orphanage tourism,66 andmodern slavery reporting by the government on its own
supply chains.67 The Australian government has committed
to introducing a bill to Parliament by mid-2018 with the aim
to pass legislation by end of 2018.68 Details of the precise
content of the bill are not yet known.

113

has been criticism about the updating of the list,75as the newversion identified only 68 businesses in contrast to the 609
names listed in 2014 before it was enjoined by the court.76

In 2014, the European Union introduced the EU Directive
2014/95/EU on disclosure of non-financial and diversity
information, which requires large businesses to include inmanagement reports a non-financial statement containing
In Brazil, the 2005 National Pact for the Eradicationof Slave Labour saw signatory companies voluntarily
information relating to social, environmental, and humanagreeing to actively promote decent work practices
rights matters.77 While modern slavery is not expressly
mentioned, it is effectively captured
and to cut commercial ties with thoseunder the category of human rights.
businesses that are on the government’s
The UK Modern Slavery Act In short, businesses are required to“Slave Labour Dirty List” because
they use forced labour in their supply(MSA) has been described as disclose if they have more than 500
or are a public interest
chains.69 The response to the Pact wasa “game changer” for tackling employees
entity.78 Twenty-seven EU countries,
positive, with more than 450 companies,
modern slavery and requiring excluding Spain, have fully transposed
representing almost 30 percent70 oftransparency on modern
Brazil’s GDP, signing onto the Pact by
the Directive into domestic legislation. It
71
2014. The “Slave Labour Dirty List” wasis estimated that the legislation will coverslavery in supply chains.
introduced by the Ministry of Labour andaround 6,000 large companies acrossEmployment in 2004 to publicly “namethe EU.79 Generally, all national laws
and shame” companies that have been found to be profiting
require that company reports cover the following topics:
from slave labour.72 Companies can also be penalised
environmental performance, social and employee matters,
through criminal and commercial sanctions, such as thehuman rights, and corruption and anti-bribery. EU Directives
freezing of assets or denial of government subsidies.73 In
give, however, significant flexibility to member countries
2014, the Supreme Court of Brazil suspended the disclosure
when transposing them domestically. Because of this, theof the Dirty List following a lawsuit filed by the Associação
requirements included in national legislation vary widely
Brasileira de Incorporadoras Imobiliárias (Abrainc), a
across the EU countries. As is described in Table 5, EU
real estate developer’s association representing manymember countries differ in the ways in which they define theorganisations on the list. Abrainc argued the list was
size of an organisation, the type of reporting mechanism,and the penalty which will be imposed upon organisations
unconstitutional as it disrespected the fundamental rightthat fail to report.80
to a defence.74 The court allowed the government to resume
publication of the list in March 2017, but since then there

114

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 5
Implementation of EU Directive on non-financial reporting in European G20 countries81
FranceGermany

Italy

United Kingdom

Name of national
legislation

Amendments to the
Law on Accounting PZE
No. 51

CSR Directive
Implementation Act

Legislative Decree no.
254, 30 December 2016

Companies, Partnerships
and Groups (Accounts
and Non-Financial
Reporting) Regulations
2016

Company scopeBusiness with morethan 500 employees
net turnover over €40
million or a balance sheet
total over €20 million
public interest entities
non-listed sociétésanonymes and non-listed
investment funds if they
have a net turnover over€100 million

Business with more than
500 employees net
turnover over €40 million
or a balance sheet total
over €20 million public
interest entities

Business with more than
500 employees net
turnover over €40 million
or a balance sheet total
over €20 million public
interest entities

Business with more than
500 employees public
interest entities

Type of reporting
mechanism

Annual report, within
8 months of the endof financial year, madeavailable on website for
5 years

Management report,
or separate non-financial
report, within 4 months
after the balance sheet
dateManagement report,
or separate report within
deadline of financial
statements, publishedon company register
alongside management
reportStrategic report

Penalties

No fine is imposed
unless an interested
party asks for thedisclosure of the nonfinancial information, if it
is not available, financial
penalties can be
imposed by a judge.

Up to the amount whichis the highest of thefollowing: €10 million or
five percent of the total
annual turnover of thecompany or twice theamount of the profits
gained or losses avoided
because of the breach.

Between €20,000
and €150,000

None

It should be noted that several other European countries
are developing due diligence regulations. This includes theupcoming Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law82 and thelatest developments in Switzerland sparked by the Swiss
Responsible Business Initiative (RBI), which is seeking
an amendment to the Swiss Federal Constitution thatwould require companies to conduct mandatory humanrights diligence in line with the UN Guiding Principles. In
response to the RBI, the Legal Affairs Committee of the
Swiss Parliament’s Council of States announced in late 2017that a new bill would be drafted that would make humanrights due diligence mandatory for all large companies andalso for small and medium-sized enterprises operating in
high-risk areas. It is expected that the public referendum
on this proposed legislative amendment will take place
towards the end of 2018 or the beginning of 2019. 83

In a major step forward, the Canadian government
announced on 17 January 2018 that it will create an
independent Canadian Ombudsman for Responsible
Enterprise (CORE). The CORE will be mandated toinvestigate allegations of human rights abuses linked
to Canadian corporate activity abroad and will have thepower to independently investigate, report, recommend,
and remediate, as well as to monitor implementation of
the remedies it imposes. The position’s scope will be multisectoral, initially focusing on the mining, oil and gas, andgarment sectors, but it is expected that it will be extended
to other business sectors. The Canadian government
also announced plans to establish an Advisory Board on
Responsible Business Conduct to advise the government
and the CORE on responsible business conduct abroad.84

Importing Risk

115

Ethical recruitment
Global supply chains entail the buying of goods but also
the purchase of labour. In our globalised world, millions of
so-called economic migrants are leaving their countries
to seek work elsewhere. Remittances from migrant labour
contribute strongly to the GDP of many developing
countries. For the purpose of preventing and eliminating
modern slavery, there needs to be a particular focus ofattention on migrant workers, especially those working in
the low-skilled, informal, or seasonal sectors as they are
generally more vulnerable due to a combination of factors,
including linguistic barriers, financial pressure, or limited
knowledge of their local rights.85 Their situation is often
exacerbated by the available migration frameworks that

may offer only limited options for safe migration. Many of
the issues connected to exploitation of migrant workers
are rooted in practices that trap workers in bonded labourtype situations that they are unable to leave. Some of themost fundamental practices increasing the vulnerabilityof workers assessed under the Global Slavery Index’s
Government Responses Index include the charging ofrecruitment fees to workers and the lack of labour law
protection for migrant workers and those working invulnerable sectors. Accordingly, while businesses have arole to play, it is essential that governments take action to
improve conditions for migrant workers by enforcing ethicalrecruitment and labour protections.86

TABLE 6
G20 government responses concerning recruitment fees
Laws implemented to prevent
fees charged to employee

No federal legislation,individual state laws enacted

Fees capped at certain
amounts or according tocertain conditions

No laws implemented

BrazilCanadaGermany

Argentina

Italy

United States

India

Australia

Japan

China

South Africa
United Kingdom

FranceIndonesia
MexicoRussiaSaudi Arabia
Korea, Republic of(South Korea)
TurkeyTable 6 groups the various policy responses of G20
countries on charging of recruitment fees to workers87 into
four different categories. Some countries have legislationprohibiting recruitment fees that are charged to theemployee. For example, the UK’s Employment Agencies
Act 1973, Section 6, prohibits employment agencies fromcharging recruitment fees to the workers for finding or trying
to find them employment.88 Since 2005, the UK has also
had a licensing scheme to regulate businesses that provide
workers to the agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering,and processing and packaging sectors.89 The Gangmasters
and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA, formerly known as theGangmasters Licensing Authority) is a non-departmental
public body that assesses third-party employment agencies
to ensure they meet certain standards with regard toworkers receiving fair treatment and being legitimately
employed.90 In mid-2017, the GLAA’s role was broadened tomore effectively combat modern slavery across the entire
labour market (i.e. including sectors that are not subject to
GLAA licensing91). GLAA officers now have new police-style
powers that allow them to carry out arrests (rather thanrefer offenders on to the police) and to search for and seize
evidence of labour offences.92
In two G20 countries, Canada and the United States,
policies prohibiting recruitment fees charged to theemployee exist in certain states and provinces but are notfederally legislated.
Another group of G20 countries allows the charging ofrecruitment fees to the employee but caps the amountaccording to certain conditions. For example, in Germany,
paragraph 296 of the German Social Code of Law(Sozialgesetzbuch) states that when using a private
recruitment agency, the job seeker enters into a contract withthe agency. If the agency finds employment for the job seeker,
the job seeker is required to pay a fee to the recruitment
agency, as per the contract. This fee is generally capped at€2,000 (US$2,48093) and at €150 (US$18594) for au pair jobs.95
The Japanese government prohibits the charging ofrecruitment fees to the employee under Article 6 of theLabour Standards Act, with the Labour Standards Inspection
Offices conducting inspections to ensure compliance.96

116

Global Slavery Index 2018

Recruitment agencies, however, are governed by the
Employment Security Act (Article 32-3), which allows licensed
recruitment agencies to collect fees from job seekers inspecial cases, such as when “collection of a fee from a job
seeker is found to be necessary for the interest of said job
seeker.”97 These provisions are also applicable to migrant
workers if they use agencies based in Japan to either findthem work in Japan or make arrangements for them to cometo work there.98
India’s Employment (Amendment) Rules 2009 states that
recruitment agents can charge fees to the employee butthat they must be limited to 45 days' wages or a maximumof 20,000 Indian Rupees (US$312 99).100 Overcharging
and abuses within this system are, however, common
and well documented.101 The Ministry of External Affairs
launched an eMigrate online foreign worker recruitment
system in 2015 102 in an effort to make the system“safer, more orderly and humane,”103 through ensuring
foreign employers and recruiters comply with relevant
regulations. However, widespread abuses confirm thatcompliance remains an issue.104
Half the G20 countries have not implemented any laws to
make sure that workers are not charged any recruitment
fees. Australia does not have a federal policy that explicitly
prohibits charging of fees to the employee as a payment for
labour supply services or facilitating migration. Although the
Fair Work Act 2009 specifies that companies hiring throughlabour hire agencies pay the labour hire agency (the “on-hirebusiness”) a fee for their recruitment services, it does not
specifically prohibit recruitment fees from being charged
to the employee.105 There are some existing regulatory
frameworks for labour hire firms and recruitment agencies,
however these differ largely among Australia’s states andterritories.106 Also, it is uncertain whether and how these laws
can be enforced with regard to overseas agents or brokers.107
China does not have a comprehensive legislative
framework prohibiting recruitment fees from being charged
to the employee, but China’s legal framework does include
some unique features focused on protecting workers in theinformal economy and those who are engaged throughrecruiters.108 In 2008, China enacted a Labour Contract Law
in an effort to formalise all employment relations.109 This gave
workers robust protection and made contracts compulsory
for all workers.110 An amendment made to the law in 2013
allows for greater protection of workers who are employedthrough a recruitment agency. The revisions require
employers to hire the majority of their workforce directly inorder to restrict the number of workers engaged throughrecruiters. The amendment guarantees contract workers
the same rights as their directly-employed counterparts,
such as the required social benefits (including pensions,health insurance, and unemployment benefits)111 andpayment of their full wage.112
Once migrant workers have been recruited, it is importantthat they are provided with safeguards that ensure decent
working conditions. This should include protection underdomestic labour laws, regardless of industry or specificcharacteristic of their work arrangements (such as nothaving a written contract). Table 7 classifies the legal
protections afforded to workers across the G20 countries.
Nine G20 countries have labour laws that cover all workers(national and foreign workers). While such legislation exists
in Indonesia, in practice, domestic workers are unable
to access the protections these laws afford. As for the
majority of G20 countries, certain sectors are not coveredby national labour law. Table 7 details which sectors are
excluded in each of those countries.

TABLE 7
G20 government responses on equal labour laws
Labour laws cover all workers

Labour laws exclude workers in certain sectors

Argentina

Australia (domestic workers excluded in one state)

BrazilGermany (domestic workers and domestic workers of diplomats
excluded)

CanadaIndia (domestic workers excluded)

China

Italy (employees of companies with fewer than 15 workers anddomestic workers excluded)

FranceJapan (domestic workers and those in informal sectors excluded)

Indonesia

Russia (employees of companies connected with 2018 World Cup
excluded from labour law)

MexicoKorea, Republic of (South Korea) (domestic workers excluded)

South Africa

Turkey (multiple sectors excluded)

United Kingdom

United States (domestic workers excluded from laws to unionise
and from protections when working in the private home of a family)
Saudi Arabia (migrant workers, domestic workers and seafarers
excluded)Importing Risk

Police showed some evidence of human trafficking crimes duringa press conference at the Indonesian National Police Criminal
Investigation Agency Office, Jakarta, August, 2017. The Indonesian
Police’s Special Task Force on Human Trafficking, successfully
dismantled international human trafficking syndicates, which weretrafficking individuals to the Middle East, in particular Syria and Abu
Dhabi in the UAE. A total of eight suspects were arrested, and dozens
of passports, visas, and other documents were confiscated as evidence.
Police also managed to rescue some of the victims who were going to
be sent to Syria and Abu Dhabi; one of them was a 14-year-old girl.
Photo credit: Aditya Irawan/NurPhoto via Getty Images

117

118

Global Slavery Index 2018

Recommendations:
What should governments
and businesses be doing?
G20 Governments

G20 Businesses

Public procurement

Transparency in Supply Chains»» Governments should require publicly funded entities
to report on steps taken to eliminate modern slavery
from their supply chains.
»» Governments should require government contractors(and their sub-contractors) to certify that they takespecific preventive measures to detect and eliminate
trafficking and forced labour in their supply chains.

Business supply chains»» Governments should enact legislation that requires
large businesses to report on steps taken toeliminate modern slavery within their business andsupply chains (“modern slavery statements”).
»» Governments should manage a free and publicly
accessible repository to file all modern slavery
statements to ensure businesses can be held
accountable for non-compliance.
»» Governments should ensure that any legislativereform aligns with legal and regulatory efforts within
the G20, in consultation with business, civil society,and other stakeholders.

Ethical recruitment
Governments should take measures to make sure that
migrant workers (and not just nationals) are protected by:»» Ensuring that labour law covers national and migrant
workers in all sectors.
»» Enacting legislation that prohibits charging recruitment
fees to the employee.

»» Businesses should report annually on steps taken toaddress risks and eradicate modern slavery within
their organisations and supply chains, ensuring
these reports are signed by their boards and madepublicly available.
»» Businesses should proactively and regularly conduct
due diligence for modern slavery risks (in accordancewith emerging international standards) internally andwithin their supply chains, and they should encourage
their suppliers to make similar efforts.

Ethical recruitment
Businesses should demonstrate good practices aroundethical recruitment. These include:»» Never withholding workers’ identity documents.
»» Never charging recruitment fees to workers andusing only those recruitment agencies that have azero-fee policy.
»» Businesses should provide jobs, internships,
skills training, and opportunities to survivors ofmodern slavery.
»» Businesses should engage with governments
and stakeholders to develop laws and regulations
relating to supply chains to ensure legislative reform
has meaningful impact.
»» Businesses should share information and goodpractices with regard to ensuring their supply chainsare free of modern slavery on a pre-competitive basis
across industries and sectors, as well as support andengage with civil society groups on these matters.

»» Enacting laws prohibiting employers or agencies
from withholding personal identification documentsof workers.
»» Regulating third party labour agencies via aformal licensing system that is aligned across
G20 countries (similar to the UK Gangmasters andLabour Abuse Authority).
»» Identifying and promoting safe migration corridors
for workers.

The Missing public art campaign.
The Missing Mural Walk ‘The Hunt for
the Lost Durga’ in Kolkata, India, wascreated in 2017 to raise awarenessof the sex trafficking of girls. Eightmurals tell the story of a girl who has
been kidnapped into sex trafficking.
Artist: Amogh Lux.

Importing Risk

119

120

Global Slavery Index 2018

ARGENTINA

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†GARMENTS

TIMBERFISH

CARPETSJapanSouth Korea

China
Pakistan
Vietnam
India
Thailand

Malaysia
Indonesia
Peru
BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^446,274

China
20,925

Malaysia

157,343

China
Vietnam

22,792

India

21,809Thailand

5,470

Malaysia

4,397

Brazil3,315
34,219BrazilPeru

110
20,225ThailandIndonesia

74

South Korea

6

Japan

4

India

2,253

Pakistan

17

Argentina’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$739m/US$354b†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

121

Importing Risk

AUSTRALIA

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†GARMENTS

FISH

RICE

COCOA

RussiaSouth Korea

Japan

China

Vietnam
India

Côte d’Ivoire

TaiwanThailand

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

BrazilAustralia
Argentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China

6,671,902

Malaysia

351,283

China

4,091,699

India

167,223

Vietnam

166,564

Thailand

74,705

Malaysia

17,180BrazilArgentina

2,462
177

Thailand

223,118

Indonesia

49,675

China

47,346

Taiwan40,250

Japan

5,629

South Korea

1,809

Russia

277

Ghana

3

India

40,625

Côte d’Ivoire

18,146

Ghana

4,412

†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

Australia’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$12b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

122

Global Slavery Index 2018

BRAZIL

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

GARMENTSELECTRONICS†FISH

CATTLE

COCOA

Japan
South Korea

China

TaiwanVietnam
India

Côte d'Ivoire

Thailand

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

BrazilParaguay

Argentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China

1,495,047

India

147,849

Vietnam

95,044

Argentina

26,739Thailand

21,442

Malaysia

9,950

China

786,722

Malaysia

45,386

China

179,143

Thailand20, 449

Taiwan11,372

Japan

1,268

Indonesia

112

South Korea

102

Paraguay

124,435

Ghana

32,537

Côte d’Ivoire

25,107†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

Brazil’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$3b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

Importing Risk

CANADA

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†

123

GARMENTS

GOLD

FISH

SUGARCANE

RussiaCanadaJapan
South Korea
China
TaiwanVietnam

Domincan Republic

India

Thailand

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

Peru

BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^7,552,860

China
Malaysia

67,534

China

3,723,363

Vietnam

628,708

India

291,598

Thailand

64,903

Malaysia

33,880Brazil954

Argentina

66

Peru

1,584,163

China

192,932

ThailandTaiwan144,062
15,301

Russia11,456

Indonesia

11,117

Japan

10,916South Korea

5,661

Ghana

289

BrazilDominican Republic

243,305

Canada’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$15b/US$354b

4†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

124

Global Slavery Index 2018

CHINA

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†

FISH

COAL

GARMENTSSUGARCANE

RussiaNorth Korea Japan
South Korea

China

TaiwanVietnam
India

Thailand

Malaysia
Indonesia

BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
Malaysia

1,602,835

Russia937,468

Taiwan153,250South Korea

137,335

Japan

90,305Indonesia

78,449Thailand

61,166

North Korea

954,000

Vietnam

621,114

India

91,383Thailand
Malaysia

83,97024,610Argentina

595

Brazil

162

Brazil755,999

China’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$6b/US$354b†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

Importing Risk

FRANCE

125

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

GARMENTSELECTRONICS†

COCOA

FISH

TIMBER

RussiaFranceJapan
South Korea

China

TaiwanVietnam
India

Côte d’Ivoire

Thailand

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

Peru
BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China

6,418,827

India

1,041,238

VietnamThailand
MalaysiaBrazilArgentina

578,992
149,432
38,178
3,377
53

China
Malaysia

7,036,778
36,767

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana455, 281
156,518

China

183,007

Ghana

77,184

Russia43,011

South Korea

39,649Thailand

29,654

Indonesia

18,042

Taiwan

3,136

Japan

1,088

Brazil

84,504

Peru

6,499

†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

France’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$16b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

126

Global Slavery Index 2018

GERMANY

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†GARMENTS

COCOA

FISH

TIMBER

RussiaGermany

Japan
South Korea

China

Vietnam
India

Côte d'Ivoire

TaiwanThailand

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

Peru
BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China
Malaysia

16,646,149
254,738

China

8,803,808

India

1,384,465

VietnamThailand
MalaysiaBrazilArgentina
Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana
China
Russia1,041,373
148,479
72,5491,290
28488,827
127,566
428,976
31,166

Indonesia

21,274Thailand

19,010South Korea

4,499

Japan

4,029

Taiwan

3,210

Ghana

2,607

Brazil

86,760Peru

537†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

Germany’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$30b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

Importing Risk

INDIA

127

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†

SUGARCANEGOLDGARMENTSDIAMONDS

North Korea
China

India

VietnamThailand

Malaysia

Peru

AngolaBrazilBreakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China

8,113,175

Malaysia

225,756

Brazil456,472Peru

363,777

North Korea

18

China

336,038

Thailand

9,902

Vietnam

9,738

Malaysia

4,338

Brazil28

Angola97,062

India’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$10b/US$354b†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

128

Global Slavery Index 2018

INDONESIA

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†GARMENTSFISHSUGARCANE

COCOA

Japan
South Korea

China

Vietnam
India

Côte d’Ivoire

TaiwanThailand

Malaysia

Indonesia

BrazilBreakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^1,557,687

China
100,206

Malaysia

738,729

China
Malaysia

23,472

Vietnam

11,305Thailand

7,330

India

6,926

China
Taiwan101,778
50,641

Japan

17,940Thailand

4,835South Korea

1,880

BrazilCôte d’Ivoire

117,879
46,078Indonesia’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$3b/US$354b†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

Importing Risk

ITALY

129

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

GARMENTSELECTRONICS†

COCOA

CATTLEFISH

Russia

Italy

Japan
South Korea

China

TaiwanVietnam
India

Côte d’Ivoire

Thailand

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

BrazilParaguay
Argentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China

3,203,516

India

379,242

VietnamThailand

213,159
38,604

Malaysia

8,521

Brazil

1,965

Argentina

53

China
Malaysia

2,830,742
2,425

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

168,696
58,575

BrazilParaguay
China

222,628
2,526
56,179Thailand

47,712Indonesia

41,424South Korea

22,219Ghana

14,709Taiwan8,096

Russia

1,053

Japan

877

†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

Italy’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries^.

US$7b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

130

Global Slavery Index 2018

JAPAN

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†GARMENTS

FISH

COCOA

TIMBER

RussiaChina

Vietnam
India

Côte d’Ivoire

South Korea

Japan

TaiwanThailand

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

Peru
BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China
Malaysia

22,145,679
245,182

China

17,050,285

Vietnam

2,776,670

Thailand438,320

India

227,060

MalaysiaBrazilArgentina

108,725
2,863
959

China

1,512,309

Thailand

451,197

Taiwan442,238

South Korea

369,356

Russia320,058

Indonesia
Ghana

224,319
2,915

Ghana

110,615

Côte d’Ivoire

12,920Brazil

96,184

Peru

293†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

Japan’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$47b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

131

Importing Risk

MEXICO

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†GARMENTSFISH

TIMBER

COCOA

Japan
China

South Korea

TaiwanMexicoVietnam

India

ThailandCôte d’Ivoire

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

Peru
BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China
Malaysia

7,787,135
225,563

China

1,230,424

Vietnam

180,205

India

176,320

Malaysia

13,033Thailand

8,576

Argentina

4,401

Brazil

1,690

China

189,636

Indonesia

10,782

Japan

2,756

Taiwan2,628South Korea

1,313

Thailand

653

Brazil143,162Peru

30,858Côte d’Ivoire

50,939Ghana

650†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

Mexico’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$10b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

132

Global Slavery Index 2018

RUSSIA

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†GARMENTSCATTLESUGARCANE

FISH

Russia

Japan
China

Vietnam
India

South Korea

TaiwanThailand

Malaysia
Indonesia

BrazilParaguay

Argentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China

3,833,771

Malaysia

50,923

China

2,713,472

Vietnam

144,392

India
Thailand
MalaysiaBrazilArgentina

140,659
16,906
9,274
425
4

Brazil566,803

Paraguay

350,720

BrazilChina

321,834
177,819

Thailand

36,122indonesia

11,564

Japan

10,331

Taiwan8,465South Korea

5,058†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

Russia’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$8b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

133

Importing Risk

SAUDI ARABIA

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

GARMENTSELECTRONICS†

RICE

FISH

SUGARCANE

China

Saudi Arabia
Vietnam
India

Japan
South Korea

TaiwanThailand

Malaysia
Indonesia

BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China

1,866,408

India

405,612

Vietnam

51,142Thailand

24,404

Malaysia

11,155

Brazil768

Argentina

15

China
Malaysia

1,963,891
28,724India

1,080,016

ThailandIndonesia

123,51162,376

Taiwan18,791

Japan

11,211

China

3,172

South Korea

2,028

BrazilSaudi Arabia’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^
184,548†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

US$6b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

134

Global Slavery Index 2018

SOUTH KOREA

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†GARMENTS

FISH

COCOA

TIMBER

RussiaJapan
South Korea

China

Vietnam

India

TaiwanThailandCôte d’Ivoire

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

Peru
BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China
Malaysia

6,979,552
54,313China

3,645,332

Vietnam2,181,292

Thailand

71,944

India

59,181

Malaysia

8,986

Brazil319

Argentina

131

China

613,889

Russia508,892

Taiwan93,711

Japan

76,388Thailand

44,531Indonesia

33,290

Ghana

52

Ghana

16,505

Côte d’Ivoire

409

Brazil

14,897

Peru

1,779

†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

South Korea’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$14b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

Importing Risk

TURKEY

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†

135

GARMENTS

COCOA

COTTON

RICE

Kazakhstan
TurkeyUzbekistan Tajikistan
Turkmenistan

India

China

MyanmarVietnamThailandCôte d’ivoire

Ghana
MalaysiaBrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^
China
Malaysia

3,286,769
18,514

China

694,144

India

87,433

Vietnam

66,246

Thailand

10,415

Malaysia

9,698

Brazil266

Argentina

39

Côte d’Ivoire

231,487

Ghana

147,274

Turkmenistan
Tajikistan

207,998
32,362

Uzbekistan

10,622

Kazakhstan

1,034

India
Myanmar33,000288†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

Turkey’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$5b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

136

Global Slavery Index 2018

UNITED KINGDOM

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

GARMENTSELECTRONICS†

FISH

COCOA

RICE

RussiaUnited Kingdom

Japan
South Korea

China

Myanmar
India

Côte d’Ivoire

VietnamTaiwanThailand

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^7,298,820

China
India

1,858,359

VietnamThailand
MalaysiaBrazilArgentina

745,491
88,89042,100
1,125
57

China
Malaysia

7,996,205
58,791

China

227,449

Ghana

88,377

Thailand

75,037

Russia51,306

Indonesia

32,563

Japan

4,068

South Korea

798

Taiwan626

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana
India
Myanmar208,321
77,410172,921

United Kingdom’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$18b/US$354b

4,303†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

137

Importing Risk

UNITED STATES

Importing country
Source country

Top 5 imported products at risk of modern slavery

ELECTRONICS†GARMENTS

FISH

COCOA

TIMBER

RussiaUnited States

Japan
South Korea

China

Vietnam
India

Côte d’Ivoire

TaiwanThailand

Ghana
Malaysia
Indonesia

Peru
BrazilArgentina

Breakdown of at-risk imported products by source country (annually, in thousands of US$)*^89,490,687

China
Malaysia

1,546,001
30,468,913

China
11,258,322

Vietnam

3,855,523

India
Thailand

1,079,637

Malaysia

564,210

BrazilArgentina
China
ThailandIndonesiaJapan

19,337316
1,983,840
535,025
322,695
169,315

Taiwan136,624

South Korea

101,293

Russia34,876Ghana

121

Côte d’Ivoire

981,623Ghana

218,650

Brazil843,306Peru

22,402†Applies to laptops, computers and mobile phones only

United States’s at-risk imported products,of overall at-risk imports by G20 countries.^

US$144b/US$354b*see Appendix 3^This relates to the top 5 at-risk imports

138

Global Slavery Index 201807 APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Terminology

140

Appendix 2: Part A: Global Slavery Index Vulnerability Model142

Why measure vulnerability?
Section 1: Development of the Vulnerability Model
Section 2: Overview of 2018 Vulnerability Model development
Section 3: Description of variables in final model by dimension
Section 4: Data limitations
Appendix 2: Part B: Global Slavery Index Prevalence Estimation
Global Estimates of Modern Slavery
From global and regional to national estimates
Data limitations
Comparability with previous estimates
Appendix 2: Part C: Global Slavery Index Government Response Index
Theoretical framework: crime prevention theory
Development of the conceptual framework
Process
Data collection
RatingLimitations
Comparability

142
142
143
154
164
166
166
169
182
183
184
184
185
185
186
188
191
191

Appendix 3: Methodology for identifying risk of modern slavery
in products imported by the G20

220

1. Objective
2. Identifying a list of products at risk of modern slavery
3. Import data
4. Bibliography of products at risk of modern slavery

220
220
222
230

Appendix 4: Methodology for assessing vulnerability to modern slavery
in fisheries
Background
Assessing vulnerability to modern slavery at sea

240
240
241

Appendices

Young-soon, 80, former prisoner and forced labourer in North Korea
I knew Song Hye-rim from school. One day, she told me she was moving into the ‘great leader’ Kim Jong-il’sresidence. A few months later, my family and I were sent to Yodok, a prison camp. My parents and my eightyear-old son died of malnutrition there, and the rest of my family were either shot or drowned. Nine years
later, after my release, I was told we’d been imprisoned because I knew about Kim Jong-il’s relationship with
Song. Song Hye-rim and Kim Jong-il’s illegitimate son, Kim Jong-nam, was assassinated earlier this year
Photo credit: James Whitlow Delano

139

140

Global Slavery Index 2018

APPENDIX 1:
Terminology

In the context of this report, modern slavery covers a
set of specific legal concepts including forced labour,debt bondage, forced marriage, slavery and slavery-likepractices, and human trafficking.
Although modern slavery is not defined in law, it is used as
an umbrella term that focuses attention on commonalities
across these legal concepts. Essentially, it refers tosituations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse orleave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception,
and/or abuse of power. For example, their passport might
be taken away if they are in a foreign country, they mightexperience or be threatened with violence, or their family
might be threatened.
Different countries use different terminologies to describe
modern slavery, including the term slavery itself but also
other concepts such as human trafficking, forced labour,debt bondage, forced or servile marriage, and the saleor exploitation of children. These terms are defined invarious international agreements (treaties), which many
countries have voluntarily signed on and agreed to. The
following are the key definitions to which most governments
have agreed, thereby committing to prohibit these crimes
through their national laws and policies.

Human trafficking
Human trafficking is defined in the UN Trafficking in Persons
Protocol as involving three steps.

Forced labour
Forced labour is defined in the International Labour
Organization (ILO) Convention on Forced Labour 1930
as "all work or service which is exacted from any person
under the menace of any penalty and for which the said
person has not offered himself voluntarily." This excludes
compulsory military service, normal civil obligations,penalties imposed by a court action taken in an emergency,
and minor communal services.

Slavery and slavery-like practices
Slavery is defined in the 1926 Slavery Convention as thestatus or condition of a person over whom any or all of thepowers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.
In a later treaty, States agreed that there are also certain"slavery-like practices": debt bondage, forced or servile
marriage, sale or exploitation of children (including in armed
conflict), and descent-based slavery.

Debt bondage
Debt bondage is a status or condition, where one person
has pledged their labour or service (or that of someone
under their control), in circumstances where the fair value ofthat labour or service is not reasonably applied to reducing
the debt or length of debt, or the length and nature of theservice is not limited or defined.

1 / Recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or
receipt of persons;
2 / By means of threat or use of force or other forms of
coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of theabuse of power or of a position of vulnerability, or of thegiving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve theconsent of a person having control over another person;
3 / With the intent of exploiting that person through:prostitution of others, sexual exploitation, forced labour,
slavery (or similar practices), servitude, and removalof organs.
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or
receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall beconsidered "trafficking in persons" even if this does not
involve threat, use of force, or coercion.

Marian (not her real name), 18, a victim of forced
marriage who set herself on fire after fleeing her
husband, poses showing the scars on her hand andarm at the Elman Peace and Human Rights Centre
in Mogadishu, March 2015, where survivors of
sexual violence can find refuge, medical care andsupport. Sexual violence is widespread in Somalia
and rarely prosecuted. If anyone is punished at all
it is often the victim, not the perpetrator.
Photo credit: Carl De Souza/AFP/Getty Images

Appendices

Forced or servile marriage
The following are defined as practices "similar to slavery"in the 1956 Slavery Convention. Any institution or practicewhereby:»» A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or
given in marriage on payment of a consideration inmoney or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or
any other person or group; or»» The husband of a woman, his family, or his clan, has
the right to transfer her to another person for value
received or otherwise; or»» A woman on the death of her husband is liable to be
inherited by another person.
More recent interpretations of forced marriage are broader
than the practices defined in the 1956 Slavery Convention.
In 2006 the United-Nations Secretary-General noted that “aforced marriage is one lacking the free and valid consent ofat least one of the parties.” Forced marriage therefore refers
to any situations in which persons, regardless of their age,have been forced to marry without their consent.
Child, early and forced marriages are terms that are
sometimes used interchangeably. Some child marriages,
particularly those involving children under the age of 16 years,
are considered a form of forced marriage, given that one andor/both parties have not expressed full, free, and informed

141

consent (as noted in the joint general recommendation No.
31 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women). It is important to note that in many countries
16 and 17-year-olds who wish to marry are legally able to doso following a judicial ruling or parental consent.

Worst forms of child labour
Drawing on the 1999 International Labour Conference
Convention No.182, concerning the Prohibition and Immediate
Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour,the term "worst forms of child labour" comprises:
a. all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, suchas the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage
and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including
forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use inarmed conflict;b. the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution,
for the production of pornography, or for pornographic
performances;c. the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities,
in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs
as defined in the relevant international treaties;
d. work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which
it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or
morals of children.

142

Global Slavery Index 2018

APPENDIX 2:

Part A: Global Slavery Index Vulnerability Model

Why measure vulnerability?
Understanding a problem is fundamental to being able torespond effectively and efficiently to it. This is particularly
true for crimes that are as complex as modern slavery. Data
that enable us to understand the systemic, individual, andenvironmental factors that enable modern slavery to occur
are critical to being able to design effective preventative
measures, and also to being able to better determine wheremodern slavery may be occurring completely out of sight,
within “blind spots.”
Complementing the prevalence estimates, the Vulnerability
Model is designed to enable us to identify and better
understand the potential drivers of this crime. The
existing literature and expert input suggests a connection
between modern slavery and related systemic factors
such as corruption,1 conflict,2 and adverse environmental
change3 among many other vulnerability factors. While
this evidence provides an important starting point, without
measurement to better understand relationships andinteractions between these factors, we cannot understandtheir significance. To provide a reliable evidence base uponwhich governments, civil society groups, and businesses
can build more effective responses, a statistical approach
to identifying the factors that are correlated with increased
risk of enslavement.4 In other words, the Vulnerability
Model uses statistical testing and processes to identify thefactors that explain or predict the prevalence of modern
slavery. Reflecting the limits of existing data (particularly
on prevalence but also on key variables), the Vulnerability
Model is necessarily in the early stages of development and,as such, it should be viewed as iterative. Nonetheless, theVulnerability Model provides an important resource to better
understand and predict where modern slavery is most likely
to occur based on our present best available data.

The 2018 Vulnerability Model maps 23 risk variables acrossfive major dimensions:
1 / Governance Issues
2 / Lack of Basic Needs
3 / Inequality
4 / Disenfranchised Groups
5 / Effects of Conflict
The methodology that was used to develop the Vulnerability
Model is explained in this section. It includes, initially, steps
taken in the development of the Vulnerability Model. As thisdrew upon recent Expert Working Group consultations anda review process, we briefly describe this process and notethe decisions and changes that have been undertaken asa result of that review in implementing the methodology.
Finally, this section provides a summary of the factors andvariables that comprise the final 2018 Vulnerability Model.

Development of the Vulnerability
Model
Theoretical framework
The Vulnerability Model is guided by human security andcrime prevention theories. Human security as a developing
security sub-field has many overlapping and diverging
definitions without any clear “consensual definition”5 amongscholars. The human security theory was developed by
the UN Development Programme to capture seven major
areas of insecurity: economic, political, food, community,
personal, health, and environment. The most basic sharedcharacteristic of human security as a concept involves a
focus on the safety and wellbeing of individuals regardlessof their citizenship status or relationship to a nation state.

Appendices

Importantly, the field of human security allows us tosituate our understanding of modern slavery – a complex
crime that is both a cause and a symptom of manyother global problems such as environmental disasters,
conflict, and financial crises – within the larger discourse
on vulnerability and to ensure that we were not missing
significant dimensions of vulnerability to modern slavery.
The use of human security theory also emphasises theglobal importance of the Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) and links our vulnerability theory and modelling
exercises to the developing global discussion on common
metrics and goals for international development. Finally, thisapproach allows for the inclusion and exclusion of variables
to be grounded in theory, while remaining an empirically
exploratory approach.6

The current Vulnerability Model
The 2018 Global Slavery Index includes an assessment ofvulnerability that is used to measure the factors linked to
the risk of modern slavery in each country. The importanceof this work is twofold:
1 / To improve our understanding of the drivers of modern
slavery through quantification such that we can assesschanges in these drivers, and therefore in rates ofprevalence, over time;
2 / It provides important data that are used to arrive atestimates in countries for which no reliable, nationallevel data exist.
The major refinements made since the 2016 Global Slavery
Index and the process by which these decisions werearrived at, are set out below.

Overview of 2018 Vulnerability
Model development
The Vulnerability Model development process included thefollowing phases:
1 / Review of 2016 Vulnerability Model
2 / Data Collation
3 / Data preparation (normalisation, inversion, andlogarithmic transformation of certain variables including
refugees, internally displaced persons, and GDP (PPP))
4 / Collinearity checks (dropped if variance inflation factor(VIF) above 10 and tolerance below 0.1)
5 / Principal factor analysis
6 / Final factor loadings and placements
7 / Missing data solutions
8 / Eigenvalue weighting by factor. Throughout this process,the major decision points and a summary of the statisticalteam’s determinations are captured for transparency
9 / Quality assurance checks

143

Phase 1. Review of 2016 Vulnerability
Model
After an internal review of the 2016 Vulnerability Model,
our Expert Working Group members were consulted
between August and December 2016 regarding the areas
for improvement that had been identified. That feedback
was then summarised and a second round of consultations
took place in October and November 2017.
We sought feedback on the following areas, and below
each topic is a summary of key feedback received:

Theoretical and empirical gaps
Generally, our experts maintained the importance forcontinuity and did not identify significant gaps in our modelthat we had not already attempted to address throughsufficient alternative data sources.
Generally, experts were supportive of the use of humansecurity theory, but desired further elaboration on how
crime prevention theory was formally utilised. Thishighlighted the need for articulation and finalisation of ageneralisable theory related to determinants of slavery,
which will be dealt with in a forthcoming publication by
Joudo Larsen and Durgana.

Normalisation and standardisation
Experts recommended that we consider different
approaches to determine the overall final datatransformation method for the 2018 Vulnerability Model.
Some suggested that we employ statistical standardisation
with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Others
cautioned us to consider this question both philosophically(do we believe that these variables are normally distributed?)and empirically (how significant to our work are the outlier
figures?). As it stands, our current normalisation processfeatures outliers prominently in our calculations, while
statistical standardisation of our variables would collapse/
lose these elements.

Missing data
Experts recommended that we consider alternative formsof imputation that would allow us to avoid dimension
level imputation by employing either country vulnerability
averages (as we have done) or using regional averages atthe variable level per affected country.

Weighting by eigenvalue
Experts considered and supported the issue of weighting thefactors by eigenvalues. Even though weighting by eigenvalue
presents a slight change to our traditional vulnerability range
beyond a 100-point scale, weighted values can be (andultimately were) normalised on a 1-100 scale.

144

Global Slavery Index 2018

The actions taken as a result of these recommendations
and the final decisions made are summarised in the relevant
sections of the process, as set out below.

Phase 2. Data collation
Data requirements for model inclusion

15 / Social Safety Net
16 / Undernourishment
17 / Access to Clean Water
18 / Tuberculosis
19 / Confidence in Judicial Systems
20 / Political Instability
21 / Impact of Terrorism

In 2016 and 2017, we reviewed the Vulnerability Model,
taking account of human security theory, and considering
issues related to data quality, availability, and limitations.
Key reasons for adding or removing variables from themodel include:

22 / Internal Conflicts Fought

A. To ensure continual availability of data – data thatwere irregularly published and updated, or lacked
transparency about original data source, were removed.
B.		 To ensure we get as close to the source of the data as
possible: for example, using original source data rather
than composite scores from other indices.
C. To replace weaker measures with potentially stronger
variables.
D. To address conceptual gaps in our framework andmodel.

26 / Gini Coefficient

We collated all tested vulnerability data (35 variables listed
below) for the reference period ending on 15 April 2017. This
list of variables includes some that were added following
the expert review; data on Environmental Performance
Index were added and data from the Gender Inequality
Index (which had been in the original 2014 Vulnerability
Model but dropped in the 2016 Vulnerability Model forreasons of collinearity with other variables) were added
for re-testing. A further change from 2016 was the exclusionof “Internet usage” due to cessation of data collection onthat variable by the World Bank.
The final list of tested vulnerability variables is as follows:1/

Political Rights

2 / Civil Rights
3 / Financial Inclusion – Received Wages
4 / Literacy
5 / Child Mortality
6 / Corruption
7 / Alternative Social Safety Net measure
8 / GDP (PPP)
9 / Government Effectiveness10 / Gender Inequality Index
11 / Environmental Performance Index (EPI)
12 / Financial Inclusion – Ability to Borrow Money
13 / Financial Inclusion – Ability to Obtain Emergency Funds
14 / Cell Phone Users

23 / Violent Crime
24 / Women’s Physical Security
25 / Weapons Access
27 / Same Sex Rights
28 / Disabled Rights
29 / Acceptance of Immigrants
30 / Acceptance of Minorities7
31 / Global Slavery Index Government Response
32 / Alternative Political Rights measure
33 / Regulatory Quality
34 / Internally Displaced Persons
35 / Refugees

Phase 3. Data preparation - highlights
As recommended by the Expert Working Group, bothmethods of standardising and normalising the data were
tested and evaluated. We determined that normalisation
would be retained for its ease of use and 1-100 scale,particularly in aggregation with the other components of
the Index. There were also conceptual concerns about
forcing standardisation on these variables, given many ofthem could not be assumed to have a normal distribution.
The standardised range of values was much closer and also
resulted in negative values. This would have presented achallenge in terms of our prior approaches to vulnerability
values and scores and would not have been as intuitive to
our policy audience as our existing normalisation scales.

Normalisation
The following variables were normalised using thenormalisation formula below: Political Rights, Civil Rights, Cell
Phone Users, Social Safety Net, Child Mortality, Tuberculosis,
Political Instability, Impact of Terrorism, Internal Conflicts
Fought, Violent Crime, Women's Physical Security, Weapons
Access, Global Slavery Index Government Response,
Alternative Social Safety Net measure, Alternative Political
Rights Variable, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory
Quality, and Gender Inequality Index.

Appendices

Normalisation formula:
Normalisation: Normalised Value = 1+(Reported Value –minimum value)*(100-1)/(maximum value – minimum value)
Inversion formula for normalised variables:
101-normalised value = Inverted Value

145

Phase 4. Collinearity testing and results
Collinearity among the vulnerability variables was assessed
to identify where variables are already highly correlated.
The collinearity results for any pairs of variables with values
above 0.80 are reported in Table 1.

Certain selected variables were inverted to ensure that ahigh value indicates higher vulnerability on every variable.
The variables affected are: Cell Phone Users, Literacy,
Social Safety Net, Access to Clean Water, Corruption, Global
Slavery Index Government Response, Alternative Political
Rights, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, andEnvironmental Performance Index.
TABLE 1
Collinearity results for pairs of variables with values above 0.80
Variable 1

Variable 2

Collinearity Result

Child Mortality

Access to Water

0.8008Child Mortality

Alt. Social Safety net

0.8143

Child Mortality

Literacy

0.8040Corruption

Government Effectiveness0.9371

Corruption

Regulatory Quality

0.9048Government Effectiveness

Political Instability

0.8089Alt. Social Safety Net

Gender Inequality Index

0.8277

Alt. Social Safety Net

Environmental Performance Index

0.8794

Corruption

Political Instability

0.8063Civil Liberties

Political Rights

0.9435

Political Rights

Alt. Political Rights Measure

0.8536

Alt. Political Rights Measure

Civil Liberties

0.8261

Civil Liberties

Political Instability

0.8063

Alt. Social Safety Net

Financial Inclusion – Received Wages

0.8156

Financial Inclusion – Received Wages

Government Effectiveness0.8333Financial Inclusion – Received Wages

Gender Inequality Index

0.8506

Financial Inclusion – Received Wages

Environmental Performance Index

0.8097

Child Mortality

Gender Inequality Index

0.8048Government Effectiveness

Regulatory Quality

0.9377

Government Effectiveness

Gender Inequality Index

0.8072

Gender Inequality Index

Environmental Performance Index

0.8226

Government Effectiveness

GDP (PPP)

0.8236

Gender Inequality Index

GDP (PPP)

0.8074

Environmental Performance Index

GDP (PPP)

0.8253

146

Global Slavery Index 2018

Our Experts had previously recommended that any
variables with VIF scores above 10 and Tolerance scores
below 0.1 would be dropped from the model, and wefollowed this approach. Despite the conceptual gapsthat were potentially addressed by their inclusion in themodel, the Gender Inequality Index and Environmental

Performance Index variables suggested by our Experts
were ultimately dropped due to high collinearity with othervulnerability measures, suggesting a degree of redundancy
in their explanatory power within the model given existing
variables. A full list of variables dropped from the model ispresented in Table 2.

TABLE 2
Variables Dropped from Model following collinearity check on normalised data (with VIF and Tolerance scores)
VIF

Tolerance

Political Rights8

17.89

0.0559Civil Rights9

22.91

0.0436

Financial Inclusion – Received Wages10

10.36

0.0966

Literacy

11

13.36

0.0749Child Mortality 12

13.03

0.0768

Corruption13

10.88

0.0919Alt. Social Safety Net 1414.62

0.068415.99

0.062522.01

0.045420.05

0.049918.12

0.0552

VariableGDP (PPP)15
Government Effectiveness16

Gender Inequality Index 17
Environmental Performance Index

18

Following edits to the list reflecting the collinearity checks
described above, our final list of variables retained for factor
analysis was as follows:

18 / Acceptance of Immigrants

1/

20 / Global Slavery Index Government Response

Financial Inclusion – Ability to Borrow Money

17 / Disabled Rights
19 / Acceptance of Minorities

2 / Financial Inclusion – Ability to Obtain Emergency Funds

21 / Alternative Political Rights Measure19

3 / Cell Phone Users

22 / Regulatory Quality

4 / Social Safety Net

23 / Internally Displaced Persons

5 / Undernourishment

24 / Refugees

6 / Access to Clean Water
7 / Tuberculosis
8 / Confidence in Judicial Systems
9 / Political Instability
10 / Impact of Terrorism
11 / Internal Conflicts Fought
12 / Violent Crime
13 / Women’s Physical Security
14 / Weapons Access
15 / Gini Coefficient
16 / Same Sex Rights

Phase 5: Principal factor analysis
Principal Factor Analysis or Factor Analysis is a statisticaltechnique used to reduce the number of variables so that
relationships between variables can be easily understood.
It does so by regrouping variables into a limited set ofclusters, with each cluster representing a latent constructthat has not been directly measured (such as governanceissues, inequality, etc.). Hence, it helps to isolate constructs
and concepts from an array of many variables. Principal
Factor Analysis typically retains all factors with eigenvalues
scores over 1.0.

Appendices147

A six-factor solution is naturally occurring with the following eigenvalues expressed (Table 3):
TABLE 3
Initial Factor Analysis solution table
FactorVariance

Difference

Proportion

Cumulative

Factor One

5.68067

3.20518

0.3422

0.3422

Factor Two

2.47549

0.53718

0.1491

0.4913

Factor Three

1.938310.032900.11670.6080

Factor Four

1.905410.07282

0.11480.7228

Factor Five

1.83259

0.158460.11040.8332

Factor Six

1.674140.16979

0.10080.9340

When a six-factor solution is forced in the factor analysis, the values change slightly to the following:
TABLE 4Six-factor solution table
FactorVariance

Difference

Proportion

Cumulative

Factor One

5.82675

3.472220.35100.3510

Factor Two

2.354530.16067

0.14180.4928

Factor Three

2.19385

0.117510.13210.6249

Factor Four

2.07634

0.18338

0.12510.7500

Factor Five

1.89297

0.00861

0.11400.8640

Factor Six

1.88435

0.11350.9975

When a four-factor solution is forced in the factor analysis, the values are as follows:
TABLE 5Four-factor solution table
FactorVariance

Difference

Proportion

Cumulative

Factor One

5.52463

1.83118

0.33280.3328

Factor Two

3.69345

1.06553

0.22250.5552

Factor Three

2.62792

0.18474

0.15830.7135

Factor Four

2.44318

0.14720.8607

A forced five-factor solution yields the following values:
TABLE 6Five-factor solution table
FactorVariance

Difference

Proportion

Cumulative

Factor One

5.76130

2.338480.34700.3470

Factor Two

3.42282

1.189200.2062

0.5532

Factor Three

2.233620.14157

0.13450.6877

Factor Four

2.09205

0.153770.12600.8137

Factor Five

1.938280.11670.9305

The five-factor model (Table 6) resulted in a consolidated second factor that closely matches the 2016 model’s factor loadings.
On this basis, we decided to proceed with a five-factor solution.

148

Global Slavery Index 2018

Phase 6: Final factor loadings and placement
In the five-factor solution, the Factor Analysis variable loadings are as set out in Table 7.
TABLE 7
Final factor loadings and placement table
Variable

Factor One

Factor Two

Ability to Borrow Money

Factor Three

Factor Four

Factor Five

0.6194

Ability to Obtain Emergency Funds

Uniqueness0.5226

0.53240.5590Cell Phone Users

0.50100.5959Social Safety Net

0.70230.3238Undernourishment

0.73770.29850.63660.27530.61740.4603

Access to Clean Water

0.5625Tuberculosis
Confidence in Judicial Systems
Political Instability

0.41740.54520.89020.1806

Impact of Terrorism

0.81370.2805Internal Conflicts Fought

0.71290.4397

Violent Crime

0.5462

Women’s Physical Security

0.6270Weapons Access0.7040Gini Coefficient
Same Sex Rights

0.6218Disabled Rights

0.5396

0.59800.21350.32770.45330.23340.7416

0.31650.44670.26360.3219Acceptance of Immigrants

0.83320.2960Acceptance of Minorities

0.74140.4080

GSI Government Response

0.68050.3622

Political Rights

0.7576

0.3431

Regulatory Quality

0.84360.1485Internally Displaced Persons

0.6976

Refugees

We then started to conceptualise the factors as distinct
dimensions based on the final factor loadings from Table 7.
In consultation with our Expert Working Group, we employed
analytical frameworks focused on concept-variableconsistency to help determine how closely empirical dataor "measured concepts" match the phenomena they aremeant to capture. This framework is employed not only inthe selection of the vulnerability variables themselves, but

0.45000.23680.5995then also their resulting role in the overall dimension and,
consequently, its label. Further, the recommendation that
latent factor construction be re-focused on risk to slavery,
and not expressed as resilience, was also implemented whennaming the dimensions. The results of this process are set
out in Table 8, where the dimension headings are presented.
Please note the refugees variable has been dropped as it
does not load on any of the retained factors.

Appendices

TABLE 8Initial factor groupings by variables (final factor loading in bold, multiple loadings in italics)
Factor One(5.76 Eigen)
Governance Issues

Factor Two(3.422 Eigen)Lack of Basic Needs

Factor Three(2.233 Eigen)
Inequality

Factor Four(2.092 Eigen)
Disenfranchised Groups

Factor Five
(1.938 Eigen)Effects of Conflict

Political Instability

Cell Phone Users

Ability to Obtain
Emergency Funds

Acceptance of
Immigrants

Impact of Terrorism

GSI Government
Response

Undernourishment

Acceptance ofMinorities

Internal Conflicts
FoughtSocial Safety Net(0.7023)

Gini Coefficient

Political Rights

Ability to Borrow Money

Confidence in Judicial
Systems

Regulatory Quality

Tuberculosis

Access to Clean Water(0.5625)

Access to Clean Water(0.6366)

Violent Crime (0.5462)

Violent Crime (0.5980)

Weapons Access(0.7040)

Weapons Access(0.4533)

Same Sex Rights(0.6218)

Same Sex Rights(0.4467)

Disabled Rights
Internally Displaced
Persons (0.6976)
Women’s Physical
Security

With reference to the initial dimension headings presented
in Table 8, decisions were then made regarding placementof variables, which loaded onto multiple dimensions(variables indicate the final placement and italicisedvariables indicate multiple loadings), and the dimension
headings were refined. The final dimension headings andfinal placement of variables are set out in Table 9.

Internally Displaced
Persons (0.4500)

149

150

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 9Final Dimension headings and final variable placement
Factor One(5.76 Eigen)
Governance Issues

Factor Two(3.422 Eigen)Lack of Basic Needs

Factor Three(2.233 Eigen)
Inequality

Factor Four(2.092 Eigen)
Disenfranchised Groups

Factor Five
(1.938 Eigen)Effects of Conflict

Political Instability

Cell Phone Users

Ability to Obtain
Emergency Funds

Acceptance of
Immigrants

Impact of Terrorism

GSI Government
Response

Undernourishment

Violent Crime (0.5980)

Acceptance ofMinorities

Internal Conflicts
Fought

Women’s Physical
SecuritySocial Safety Net(0.7023)

Gini Coefficient

Same Sex Rights(0.4467)Internally Displaced
Persons(0.4500)

Political Rights

Ability to Borrow Money

Confidence in Judicial

Regulatory Quality

Tuberculosis

Disabled Rights

Access to Clean Water(0.6366)

Weapons Access(0.7040)

The following decisions were made on final dimension placements for variables that had multiple loadings (Table 10). As
recommended by our Expert Working Group, these decisions were taken to ensure a level of conceptual clarity acrossthe set of variables within each overall dimension. Table 10 also includes a brief explanation of the rationale behind thesubsequent conceptualisation of each dimension.
Table 10
Final Dimension Placement Rationales
Variables

Dimension placement and rationale

Water

Water was placed in Factor Two (Lack of Basic Needs) due to conceptual consistency with othervariables within the dimension as conceptualised (covering issues such as access to food and health)despite its slightly higher factor loading on Factor One.

Violent Crime

Violent Crime remains in Factor Three (Inequality) due to its higher factor loadings and greater
conceptual clarity with other variables in that dimension as conceptualised. That is, this variable
represents a qualitative assessment of the problems posed by violent crime for government andbusiness, reflecting a government’s capacity to address crime. Violent crime often disproportionately
affects individuals in a society, often consistent with other sociological markers of inequality. 20

Weapons Access

Weapons Access remains in Factor One (Governance) due to its higher factor loadings and greater
conceptual clarity within that dimension. That is, this variable represents a qualitative assessment of theease of access to weapons, essentially reflecting legislation and regulatory requirements.

Same Sex Rights

Despite the slightly higher factor loadings for Factor One, Same Sex Rights remains placed in Factor
Four (Disenfranchised Groups) due to conceptual consistency with the other variables on Immigrants
and Minorities in that dimension.

Displaced

Despite the slightly higher factor loadings for Factor One, Displaced remains in Factor Five (Effects ofConflict) alongside variables on refugees and impact of terrorism, for greater conceptual clarity withinthat dimension as conceptualised.

Appendices

The Governance Issues dimension was constructed torepresent elements of vulnerability strongly linked togovernment intervention and regulation. Both Weapons
Access and Women's Physical Security fit within
Governance Issues because they essentially measurea government's ability to provide for the safety of its
population. The Women's Physical Security scale takes
into account the presence and enforcement of laws against
domestic violence, rape and marital rape, the existence oftaboos or norms against reporting these crimes, and theoccurrence of honour killings and femicide. The presence
and enforcement of laws against domestic violence, rape,
marital rape, and the comfort of the public in reporting thesecrimes and whether honour killings/femicide occur (basicallyif they can occur without penalty), all fit within Governance
Issues as consistently defined with Government Response
measures. Weapons Access is also a qualitative assessmentof the ease of access to weapons, both small and light
weapons, essentially reflecting government legislation andregulation requirements. Regulatory Quality evaluates theability of governments to foster private sector development,
and Political Instability measures how well a country’s
political institutions can support the needs of its citizens,businesses, and overseas investors. Additionally, there
is a strong rationale for including Disabled Rights in thisdimension because some of the criteria for people to find anarea is a good place to live for those with intellectual abilities
also has to do with government intervention on their behalf
and overall legal protections for these populations.
The label “Lack of basic needs” was applied to Dimension
Two upon consideration of the variables that loaded on thisdimension and commonalities between them. The Lack ofbasic needs dimension was developed to reflect variablesof Cell Phone Users (an issue of Access), Undernourishment(an issue of Nourishment), Social Safety Net (an issue ofAccess), Ability to Borrow Money (issues of Access andpossibly of Nourishment if needed for sustenance),
Tuberculosis (an issue of Access to healthcare), andAccess to Clean Water (an issue of Nourishment). Accessrefers to access to clean water, access to borrowed funds,
and access to cell phones. Nourishment is reflected byhealth (Tuberculosis), undernourishment (lack of food/nourishment), and social safety net (lack of access). Accessas operationalised in this dimension is conceptualised by
an ability to obtain necessary goods/services.
The Inequality dimension reflects developments fromsociology that suggest that inequality is often a driving force
behind populations that are disproportionately affectedby violent crime and ability to access funds/emergency
funds.21 The Gini Coefficient measure is a direct measureof financial inequality in a nation. Confidence in Judicial
Systems can also be impacted by ability to access or pay
for legal representation.

151

The Disenfranchised Groups dimension measures general
acceptance of different racial and ethnic minority groups,
immigrants, and same sex groups in a population.
The Effects of Conflict dimension measures impact ofterrorism, internal conflicts fought, and internally displaced
persons as manifestations of the effects of conflict globally.

Phase 7: Missing data solutions
In reviewing the approach we took to missing data inprevious iterations of the Vulnerability Model, experts
recommended that we consider alternative forms of
imputation to avoid dimension level imputation. This led totwo changes: (1) imputation of regional averages for missing
variable data points when needed and (2) the setting of athreshold for missing data to determine when imputation
would be performed.
Regional average values for vulnerability variables allowed
us to impute missing vulnerability scores on a given
dimension by using data from similar countries in a given
geographic area.
Further, a threshold was set for missing data, such that
imputation was undertaken for all dimensions/factors
where data were missing on 50 percent of the total
number of variables in Dimensions Three, Four, and Five,and a 51 percent missing data threshold was applied on
Dimensions One and Two. In Dimensions One and Two,
this rule was applied for of Libya, Qatar, Somalia, and South
Sudan in Dimension Two: Lack of basic needs, due to thelarger number of total vulnerability variables includedin the first two dimensions of vulnerability. Dimension
One: Governance Issues also had a 51 percent or above
missing data threshold applied, but no countries in thisdimension required imputation for missing data due tothis stricter requirement. There were several cases where
imputation was deliberately not employed and missing data
percentages of 66 percent or 25 percent were retainedfor certain countries on specific dimensions in order tomaintain variability within the regions where some data may
have been more limited.
Each instance of missing data at the dimension level iscatalogued in Tables 11 and 12.

152

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 11
Countries with 100 percent missing dataon a dimension

Table 12Countries with 50 percent to 99 percent missing
data on a dimension

FactorCountry

FactorCountry

Factor Three: Inequality

Barbados

Factor One:
Governance Issues

Barbados
BruneiHong Kong, China

Factor Two:Lack of Basic Needs

KosovoBrunei
Suriname
Factor Four:DisenfranchisedGroupsAlgeria

TaiwanLibya*not imputed at 50 percent
due to greater number of variables
on Factor Two

AngolaBarbados

Qatar*not imputed at 50 percent
due to greater number of variables
on Factor Two

BruneiBurundiSomalia*not imputed at 50 percent
due to greater number of variables
on Factor Two

Cape Verde
China

South Sudan*not imputed at 50
percent due to greater number ofvariables on Factor Two

Cuba
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
EritreaGambiaGuinea-Bissau
GuyanaJamaica
Laos
Namibia
Korea, Democratic People’s
Republic of (North Korea)

Algeria
Bahrain*reduced to 25 percent
missing data
Cape Verde
Cuba
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
EritreaGambiaGuinea-Bissau

Oman

GuyanaPapua New Guinea

Hong Kong

Qatar

Jamaica

Sudan

Jordan*reduced to 25 percent
missing data

Suriname
Swaziland
Timor-Leste
Trinidad and Tobago
Syria
Mozambique
Malaysia
Sri Lanka
Factor Five: Effectsof Conflict

Factor Three: Inequality

Luxembourg

Kuwait*reduced to 25 percent
missing data
Laos
Libya
MoroccoMozambique
Myanmar
Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)
Oman*reduced to 25 percent
missing data

Appendices

153

Table 12 continued.

FactorCountry

FactorPapua New Guinea

Sudan*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Qatar*reduced to 25 percent
missing data

Papua New Guinea

Saudi Arabia*reduced to 25
percent missing data

GuyanaSuriname

Suriname

Brunei

Swaziland

Laos

Syria*reduced to 25 percent
missing data

Timor-Leste

Timor-Leste

Malaysia

Trinidad and Tobago

Swaziland

Turkmenistan

Namibia

United Arab Emirates*reduced to
25 percent missing data

Sri Lanka
GambiaUzbekistan
Factor Four:DisenfranchisedGroupsCountry

Guinea-Bissau

Bahrain*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Cape Verde
IranAlgeria*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Iraq*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

AngolaJordan*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Oman*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Kuwait*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Qatar*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Lebanon*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Syria*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Libya*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Egypt*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Morocco*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

Barbados

Saudi Arabia*maintained at 66
percent missing data

Trinidad and Tobago
Cuba

Turkmenistan

Jamaica

United Arab Emirates*maintained
at 66 percent missing data

Equatorial Guinea

Yemen*maintained at 66 percent
missing data

AngolaBurundiEritrea

Factor Five: Effects ofConflict

Barbados

Mozambique

BruneiDjibouti

Cape Verde

Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)

Hong Kong

China

Suriname
Luxembourg

154

Global Slavery Index 2018

Phase 8: Eigenvalue weighting by factor

Normalisation of Eigenvalue Weighted Variable:

We calculated the unweighted and eigenvalue weighted
vulnerability scores after consultation with our Expert
Working Group and strong recommendations to give
more weight to factors that have the most explanatory
power in our overall vulnerability score. That is, thefactors are not equal and eigenvalues indicate theamount of variance explained by a certain factor. Factors
or dimensions with greater eigenvalues explain more of
the overall model and can be weighted accordingly in theoverall vulnerability score.

Normalisation: Normalised Value = 1+(Reported Value –minimum value)*(100-1)/(maximum value – minimum value)

After calculating the unweighted averages across factors(simple Average calculation function) and the Unweighted
Overall Vulnerability Score (Factor 1 Average + Factor 2
Average + Factor 3 Average + Factor 4 Average + Factor
5 Average) divided by five factors, the following formula
was then employed to determine the eigenvalue weighted
vulnerability scores:

Eigenvalue weighting value formula
Eigenvalue Weighting Formula:(((Factor 1 Average*5.76)+(Factor 2 Average*3.422)+(Factor 3 Average*2.233)+(Factor 4 Average*2.092)+(Factor 5 Average*1.938))/(5*5.76*3.422*2.233*2.092*
1.938))*100 = Eigenvalue Weighted Value

Ultimately, we decided to proceed with the eigenvalue
weighted values because it provided appropriate context
for the relative importance and strength of factors rather
than treating them all as equally important.

Phase 9: Quality assurance checks
A final step prior to finalising the 2018 Vulnerability Model
involved turning over all data to Ernst and Young,22 which
conducted quality assurance checks on the transcriptionof vulnerability data from the original sources, the exported
data files from Stata, and the final Excel files in order toconfirm the data underpinning our 2018 Vulnerability Modelis error-free.

Description of variables in final
model by dimension
The final dimensions and variables are presented in Table 13.
The resulting vulnerability scores are listed in Table 14 for
167 countries. Detailed descriptions of all retained variables
and relevant sources are listed in Table 15.

Table 132018 Vulnerability Model
Governance issues

Lack of Basic Needs

Inequality

Disenfranchised groups

Effects of conflict

Political Instability

Cell Phone Users

Ability to Obtain Funds

Acceptance of
Immigrants

Impact of Terrorism

GSI Government
Response

Undernourishment

Violent Crime

Acceptance ofMinorities

Internal Conflicts
Fought

Women's Physical
SecuritySocial Safety Net

Gini Coefficient

Same Sex Rights

Internally Displaced
Persons

Political Rights

Ability to Borrow Money

Confidence in Judicial
Systems

Regulatory Quality

Tuberculosis

Disabled Rights

Access to Clean Water

Weapons AccessAppendices

155“I delivered my only child in the jungle three days ago. My pain started while fleeing from our house.
Shouting from the pain, I collapsed by the roadside. Three women who were also running came forward to
help me. They covered me with banana leaves and helped me to give birth to my baby. When our house wasburned to ashes by the Myanmar military, I walked mile-after-mile with my nine-month pregnancy. Everything
we carried was taken from us for the river crossing to Bangladesh.I have no idea where my husband is andmaybe he has already been killed by the Myanmar army and my son has already lost his father. Just like hehas lost his country.” Sajeda, 25. Bangladesh, Cox's Bazar, Balukhali makeshift refugee camp.
Photo credit: GMB Akash156

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 14
Vulnerability to modern slavery by dimension for 167 countries

Country
Central African RepublicSouth Sudan
Afghanistan
Syrian Arab Republic
Congo, Democratic Republic ofSomalia
Sudan
Yemen
Iraq
Chad
Pakistan
Nigeria
Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of
Libya
BurundiKenya
Guinea-Bissau
Cameroon
Haiti
EritreaCongo
Zimbabwe
GuineaMyanmar
Niger
Swaziland
Ethiopia
Cambodia
MalawiIran, Islamic Republic ofAngola
Mauritania
Madagascar
Papua New Guinea
RwandaEquatorial Guinea
Togo
Djibouti
UgandaTanzania, United Republic of
Egypt
Philippines
Liberia
LebanonGambiaLesothoTurkmenistan
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Lao People's Democratic
Republic
MexicoCôte d'Ivoire
Mozambique
Mali

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
average

50.2
51.1
41.3
36.9
50.8
56.8
46.6
43.1
34.9
43.2
36.2
41.3

62.7
62.9
64.7
62.5
55.6
49.6
42.4
49.2
65.2
48.5
45.9
50.2

58.0
56.1
46.0
33.4
46.5
22.7
37.0
53.0
46.6
46.5
55.3
47.1

81.6
85.7
92.6
95.4
86.7
88.4
87.4
69.9
89.4
46.1
92.8
95.5

100.0
94.7
93.9
92.3
91.7
89.5
87.1
86.4
85.7
74.9
74.1
74.1

87.6

52.0

30.3

32.4

12.3

73.3

81.4
72.4
55.1
77.8
65.9
62.4
71.0
75.1
66.3
68.3
58.1
61.9
69.9
62.4
66.3
55.4
74.6
60.2
67.3
54.4
64.8
56.6
68.4
70.0
66.8
52.8
55.5
61.6
50.5
55.0
59.1
66.8
53.8
80.2
65.1

23.0
42.6
48.7
40.1
36.5
49.7
50.6
37.6
45.5
32.4
43.8
41.2
50.0
47.5
38.5
51.5
25.5
43.4
33.7
46.8
63.3
40.8
40.8
31.5
38.0
48.3
47.3
18.4
35.3
44.0
22.6
28.1
50.7
21.5
19.7

49.6
42.1
49.6
47.6
46.2
54.1
33.7
48.5
36.6
54.7
26.1
37.0
39.4
27.3
41.6
40.9
35.8
48.2
39.3
51.0
46.2
40.0
36.7
45.3
33.9
38.2
34.9
44.2
45.7
44.1
48.1
41.8
44.6
31.4
60.4

28.1
48.1
44.5
44.1
46.3
56.8
48.1
46.1
53.0
46.4
46.0
45.0
38.8
34.6
56.7
61.5
37.3
48.5
50.5
56.8
9.5
55.7
48.5
42.3
48.1
50.3
52.7
52.8
36.4
54.9
44.8
44.1
41.9
32.6
34.3

63.1
41.7
66.8
17.1
53.9
20.1
25.9
19.6
25.3
28.6
70.2
50.4
11.7
55.3
14.8
19.1
39.5
19.8
22.3
17.3
13.3
34.0
10.1
17.1
21.3
35.3
29.1
51.1
69.3
18.2
47.8
20.8
18.6
15.9
27.8

73.1
72.9
70.6
70.5
69.6
69.6
69.6
69.2
66.4
66.3
65.9
65.6
64.8
64.5
63.5
63.4
63.3
62.3
62.0
62.0
61.9
61.7
61.7
61.3
61.2
60.8
60.5
60.4
60.2
59.3
58.9
58.4
58.3
58.1
57.9

70.7

35.1

26.4

41.2

13.9

57.5

47.3
59.5
48.6
55.3

23.7
30.1
48.3
24.4

59.0
41.7
40.5
35.5

37.8
37.5
48.1
35.9

68.8
40.9
30.0
66.3

57.3
57.2
57.0
55.9

GovernanceissuesLack of basic
needs

85.4
75.7
81.0
85.6
77.2
80.6
80.7
79.2
72.6
71.8
56.8
54.1

Appendices

157

Table 14 continued.

Country
Tajikistan
Honduras
India
ZambiaSierra Leone
UkraineSouth Africa
Burkina Faso
Timor-Leste
Cuba
Ghana
Guatemala
Algeria
Colombia
RussiaTurkeyThailandEl Salvador
China
Indonesia
Oman
Bangladesh
JordanBahrain
Gabon
MoroccoNamibia
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Belarus
Brunei Darussalam
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Saudi Arabia
SenegalKuwaitMacedonia, the former Yugoslav
Republic of
GuyanaAlbania
Benin
Cape Verde
Peru
Jamaica
Nepal
Bolivia, Plurinational State ofNicaragua
KosovoArmenia
Mongolia
Kazakhstan
Dominican Republic
Kyrgyzstan
Sri Lanka
Botswana
Suriname

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
average

30.9
26.5
29.8
54.4
46.1
15.9
38.3
31.6
41.9
25.9
29.1
25.8
17.9
19.2
13.5
22.2
21.8
23.0
20.5
38.0
20.5
38.4
15.7
25.8
27.1
18.8
38.4
21.2
20.3
16.7
30.9
16.4
21.9
34.8
20.1

32.8
58.9
32.4
44.9
41.2
46.4
61.0
40.3
37.2
37.6
42.0
58.1
27.8
56.4
38.6
47.0
35.3
59.8
26.9
35.8
37.8
25.7
41.8
34.5
36.6
38.1
55.9
23.9
32.6
23.9
31.7
31.7
30.1
35.6
29.3

27.8
36.5
41.1
49.1
48.1
39.0
36.9
35.2
41.2
47.8
53.7
40.9
37.0
32.6
34.1
48.6
45.1
43.6
32.4
53.3
33.4
20.9
47.4
24.0
47.5
35.7
38.8
35.7
9.0
39.4
41.2
50.7
14.2
41.0
29.3

30.1
32.7
80.0
13.1
18.1
62.2
26.9
26.2
3.9
17.3
21.6
27.4
43.6
63.5
51.9
47.9
51.9
22.7
44.2
32.2
6.4
45.3
26.2
25.4
12.4
22.0
10.4
32.5
18.0
20.8
18.2
34.1
32.2
30.9
28.5

55.8
55.5
55.5
55.2
55.2
54.4
53.8
53.1
52.8
52.4
52.2
52.1
52.0
51.6
51.6
51.6
51.1
50.7
50.6
50.5
50.1
50.0
49.9
49.6
49.1
48.3
48.1
47.8
47.5
47.3
47.2
46.4
46.3
46.2
45.9

48.4

17.4

42.5

50.6

27.3

45.6

49.5
46.0
51.1
48.7
44.3
39.5
52.0
50.9
48.2
53.1
51.1
40.9
60.4
42.5
49.6
44.1
43.3
55.5

25.6
20.7
28.8
19.7
24.7
24.2
35.6
25.8
24.5
16.0
18.9
36.8
14.5
28.7
19.7
27.0
37.9
10.7

60.4
44.3
39.9
44.1
48.0
62.2
32.2
46.3
43.3
39.3
33.8
35.1
25.1
46.1
35.4
33.5
37.3
50.8

28.1
48.4
35.3
44.1
38.2
47.8
8.7
32.1
35.3
49.7
46.3
47.1
38.2
38.8
42.6
34.9
37.6
28.1

12.4
27.0
15.8
22.1
27.5
15.5
34.7
13.4
22.8
12.0
22.1
18.1
19.5
21.8
23.2
35.9
9.7
16.3

45.4
45.2
45.0
44.5
44.3
44.2
44.1
44.1
43.9
43.8
43.6
43.5
43.3
43.1
42.8
42.5
42.1
42.1

GovernanceissuesLack of basic
needs

67.4
55.5
46.2
45.8
50.9
54.0
46.7
58.4
58.4
60.2
52.6
51.0
63.2
45.7
59.3
47.0
50.9
50.5
61.4
43.7
68.7
54.1
57.9
63.0
56.5
60.7
44.6
60.3
71.7
64.9
53.5
52.0
63.2
43.9
59.7

158

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 14 continued.

Country
Barbados
Moldova, Republic ofVietnamEcuadorParaguay
Malaysia
Tunisia
Georgia
Trinidad and Tobago
Qatar
GreeceIsraelPanamaBrazilMontenegro
SerbiaRomania
Croatia
Bulgaria
Korea, Republic ofEstonia
Argentina
Costa Rica
Italy
Slovakia
United Arab Emirates
Lithuania
Chile
Hong Kong, China
LatviaPolandHungary
Mauritius
Taiwan, China
Slovenia
Uruguay
CyprusCzech Republic
United States
FranceJapan
Singapore
Belgium
Spain
United Kingdom
Germany
Ireland
CanadaPortugal
Luxembourg
FinlandNetherlands
NorwayAustralia
SwedenGovernanceissuesLack of basic
needs

47.6
42.0
53.6
46.0
38.3
36.2
47.2
41.5
38.6
56.3
38.5
35.8
44.2
43.1
39.4
39.1
35.8
35.7
33.0
33.9
35.2
39.3
35.2
31.7
29.9
47.9
29.2
28.5
39.3
31.7
24.5
23.9
25.5
24.5
22.4
31.9
24.5
25.1
18.3
17.3
21.5
30.8
20.0
17.2
15.9
15.9
17.2
16.6
12.2
17.7
18.6
12.8
15.7
11.9
10.2

14.3
22.9
23.2
23.0
21.0
28.4
15.4
19.3
13.0
13.8
14.4
19.1
21.0
13.6
15.0
15.2
19.5
20.2
14.7
29.4
13.7
11.4
16.7
14.4
15.1
15.1
15.4
13.8
9.6
15.9
13.7
14.8
17.7
24.7
16.6
13.5
16.7
13.9
18.2
15.4
13.1
16.3
15.0
18.3
15.6
15.0
17.0
20.7
15.6
13.7
16.0
13.6
17.8
15.7
17.0

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
average

52.5
35.3
28.1
46.4
64.7
39.6
34.8
33.9
62.4
29.5
36.4
27.5
42.6
56.2
37.4
31.6
32.6
34.1
43.3
25.7
27.4
45.0
40.7
45.4
29.9
24.7
35.6
50.0
24.7
23.8
27.5
32.9
33.6
40.6
30.6
34.3
32.6
21.0
30.3
29.4
15.5
5.0
29.9
33.5
25.1
22.8
24.3
20.1
31.7
24.5
15.0
26.0
13.1
20.7
17.4

47.8
58.3
32.5
29.1
32.7
41.2
31.9
43.9
47.8
33.4
56.0
48.5
33.1
19.8
50.9
40.9
52.0
48.3
44.1
33.8
52.2
23.6
29.4
31.0
51.2
7.8
46.3
23.5
28.4
44.0
59.6
48.3
31.1
21.1
45.6
15.4
29.7
37.1
15.6
21.2
31.9
18.7
19.3
15.1
12.4
15.7
10.9
9.2
20.7
12.1
17.8
16.0
9.4
12.0
13.0

9.2
18.1
18.5
23.0
22.7
27.8
33.7
31.4
13.7
7.0
23.6
38.6
9.4
24.0
18.3
27.5
16.1
12.2
17.4
13.4
12.4
13.4
12.2
19.3
14.2
11.9
9.7
20.3
15.0
10.3
13.6
15.5
12.2
1.4
6.4
9.5
10.1
18.2
28.6
28.5
17.8
9.0
12.3
14.2
27.8
24.7
20.1
21.5
9.7
14.3
11.2
12.2
10.8
13.0
18.3

41.9
41.6
41.5
41.3
40.9
39.2
39.2
39.2
39.1
37.7
37.1
36.4
36.4
36.4
35.8
33.9
33.9
32.7
31.3
29.8
29.2
28.9
28.4
28.3
27.2
26.8
26.2
25.6
24.7
24.6
24.4
23.6
21.2
20.3
20.1
19.7
19.1
19.1
15.9
15.3
13.8
13.4
13.1
12.8
11.1
10.4
10.4
10.2
8.5
8.4
8.2
6.1
4.5
4.3
4.3

Appendices

159

Table 14 continued.

Country
Iceland
Austria
New Zealand
Switzerland
Denmark

GovernanceissuesLack of basic
needs

20.6
12.6
12.2
11.6
8.7

11.7
12.2
18.4
12.2
15.3

Inequality

Disenfranchised
groups

Effects ofconflict

Overallweighted
average

21.1
18.2
16.2
15.2
13.8

4.1
23.5
7.0
20.1
15.2

1.8
3.1
7.0
4.9
12.5

4.2
3.4
1.9
1.5
1.0

Lebanon, Syria. A Syrian sex trafficking victim applies nailpolish at her safehouse at an undisclosed location in Lebanon,
April 2016, after she fled a brothel in Lebanon where she
was being held captive. Lebanese security forces busted a
trafficking ring involving 75 Syrian women trafficked to
Lebanon from their country and forced into the sex industry.
Photo credit: Stringer/AFP/Getty Images

Data Description and Source

Data are from The Global Peace
Index, which measures the level ofpeace in 162 countries according
to 22 qualitative and quantitative
indicators aligned with the absencesof violence and fear of violence. 24

Data are from The Global Peace
Index, which measures the level ofpeace on 162 countries according
to 22 qualitative and quantitative
indicators aligned with the absencesof violence and fear of violence. 25

Data are from Women Stats. 26

Data are from Gallup Analytics,
which presents a detailed
assessment of global attitudes formore than 100 countries. 27

Data are from Global Slavery Index.

Data are from the Center for
Systemic Peace, Polity IV Dataset
hosted by the Integrated Network forSocietal Conflict Research. 28

Data are from the Worldwide
Governance Indicators (WGI).
Regulatory Quality is one of six
broad dimensions of governancecovered by the WGI (others include
Voice and Accountability, Political
Stability and Absence of Violence/
Terrorism, Regulatory Quality, Ruleof Law, Control of Corruption). 29

Variable Name

Political
Instability

Weapons Access

Women's
Physical Security

Disabled Rights

Government
Response GSI

Political Rights

Regulatory
Quality

Factor

Factor One:
Governance
IssuesThe variable Regulatory Quality measures perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implementsound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development. The variable ranges fromapproximately -2.5, which indicates low regulatory quality, to a score of 2.5, which indicates high regulatory quality.
Data are from 2014.

This variable measures governments on a scale from strongly democratic to strongly autocratic. Alt. Political
Rights Variable "Polity IV" score is the POLITY2 score reported in the POLITY IV dataset on "Regime Authority
Characteristics and Transitions Database" under the Polity IV: Annual Time-Series, 1800-2015 Excel file. Thisvariable modifies the original Polity score that measures the "Combined Polity Score: The POLITY score iscomputed by subtracting the AUTOC score from the DEMOC score; the resulting unified polity scale ranges from+10 (strongly democratic) to -10 (strongly autocratic). This variable was then inverted to represent increasing risk toslavery through less democratic governance. Data are from 2015.

The variable Government Response from the Global Slavery Index represents the average evaluation score foreach country across five main indicators including: 1) Survivors are Supported, 2) Criminal Justice Responses, 3)
Coordination and Accountability, 4) Attitudes, Social Systems, and Institutions, and 5) Business and Government
Responses to Modern Slavery in Supply Chains. Each section sub-score is aggregated to provide a response rating.
The quantitative evaluation scores are used for each country. Data are from 2016. These values range from 0
representing poor government response to 100 representing strong government response.

The variable Disabled Rights measures the proportionally representative percentage of respondents who
responded that their region is "not a good place" in direct response to the question: "Is the city or area where
you live a good place or not a good place to live for people with intellectual disabilities?" 0 represents lower
vulnerability, 100 represents higher vulnerability. Select World Poll as Data Source, Good Place for Intellectually
Disabled as your Metric, Aggregate Demographics, and Time set to Year 2015. Data are from 2015.

This variable reflects women’s physical security on a range of indicators. It is a multivariate scale derived from
WomenStats Database that provides the ordinal ranking of the physical security of women. Data are from variable"MULTIVAR-SCALE-1." The scale takes into account the presence and enforcement of laws against domestic violence,
rape and marital rape, the existence of taboos or norms against reporting these crimes, and the occurrence of
honour killings and femicide. This scale ranges from 1 "high security" to 4 "low security." Data are from 2014.

The variable Weapons Access is a qualitative assessment of the accessibility of small arms and light weapons.
This measure ranges from a value of 1, which indicates very low access to weapons, to a value of 5, which indicatesvery high access to weapons. Data are from 2016.

This variable represents an assessment of political instability ranked from 1 to 5 (very low to very high instability).
This measure is assessed by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) based on five questions relating to the degree towhich the country's political institutions are sufficiently stable to support the needs of its citizens, businesses, andoverseas investors. This indicator aggregates five other questions on social unrest, orderly transfers, opposition
stance, excessive executive authority, and an international tension sub-index. These data are analysed andupdated on a quarterly basis. The score provided for March 2014–March 2015 is the average of the scores given foreach quarter.

Variable Description Min-max normalisation has been performed on all variables to ensure comparability via alinear transformation (scale of 1 to 100).

160
Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 15
Variable descriptions and sources23

Data are from the World Bank's
World Development Indicators. 30

Data are from the International
Labour Organization's (ILO) World
Social Protection Report. 31

These data are from the Statistics
Division of the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations. 32

Data are from the World Bank, World
Development Indicators. 33

Data are from the World Bank, World
Development Indicators. 34

Data are from World Bank Global
FINDEX which provides data on
how individuals save, borrow, makepayments, and manage risks. The
indicators in the 2014 Global Financial
Inclusion (Global Findex) databaseare drawn from survey data covering
almost 150,000 people in 143
economies—representing more than
97 percent of the world’s population.35

Cell Phone Users

Social Safety Net

Undernourish­
ment

Access to Clean
Water

Tuberculosis

Ability to Borrow
Money

Factor Two:Lack of basic
needs

Data Description and Source

Variable Name

FactorThis variable represents the percentage of those age 15+ who borrowed any money in the past year. The
percentage of respondents who report borrowing any money for any reason and from any source in the past
12 months. The potential data values range from 100 percent of respondents age 15 and over to 0 percent ofrespondents who reported borrowing any money for any reason and any source in the past 12 months. Data arefrom 2014.

This variable measures the incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 people). Incidence of tuberculosis is theestimated number of new pulmonary, smear positive, and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis cases. Incidence includes
patients with HIV. Data are from 2015.

This variable measures improved water source access as a percentage of the total population. Access to an
improved water source refers to the percentage of the population using an improved drinking water source. The
improved drinking water source includes piped water on premises (piped household water connection locatedinside the user’s dwelling, plot or yard), and other improved drinking water sources (public taps or standpipes, tube
wells or boreholes, protected dug wells, protected springs, and rainwater collection). This variable is measured inpercentage points of the total population with improved access to water with potential values ranging from 0 to 100
percent of the population.

This variable measures prevalence of undernourishment. The prevalence of undernourishment expresses theprobability that a randomly selected individual from the population consumes an amount of calories that is
insufficient to cover her/his energy requirement for an active and healthy life. When a value is listed as <5.0, thevalue is reported as 2.5. Data provided are for 2014-2016.The indicator is measured as a percentage and computedby comparing a probability distribution of habitual daily dietary energy consumption with a threshold level called
the minimum dietary energy requirement. Both are based on the notion of an average individual in the reference
population. This is the traditional FAO hunger indicator, adopted as official Millennium Development Goal indicatorfor Goal 1, Target 1.9. It is listed as Dataset V.2 Note: Many of the developed countries that are scored as <5.0, which
will translate to a 2.5 value in our dataset, are actually listed beneath the section "Developed Countries" at the end
and you must apply this proportion for all of the countries in that category.The indicator is calculated in three year
averages, from 1990-92 to 2014-16, to reduce the impact of possible errors in estimated DES, due to the difficulties
in properly accounting of stock variations in major food. Data are from 2014-2016. Data in Excel are also available
here http://bit.ly/14FRxGV.

The variable Social Safety Net evaluates countries on their national social security system based on the number ofpolicy areas covering at least one program including total social security provisions available to citizens including
protections for sickness, maternity, old age, invalidity, survivors, family allowances, employment injury, andunemployment. Scores range from 0 to 8, where a value of 0 indicates that none of these provisions are provided,and a value of 8 indicates that all of these provisions are provided. Data are from the World Social Protection
Report 2014/2015.

The variable Cell Phone Users measures the number of cellular subscriptions per 100 people for each country.
The indicator includes (and is split into) the number of postpaid subscriptions, and the number of active prepaid
accounts (i.e. that have been used during the last three months). The indicator applies to all mobile cellularsubscriptions that offer voice communications. It excludes subscriptions via data cards or USB modems,
subscriptions to public mobile data services, private trunked mobile radio, telepoint, radio paging, and telemetry
services. Data are from 2015. The potential data values range from 0 out of 100 people in a country to 100 out of
100 people in a country.

Variable Description Min-max normalisation has been performed on all variables to ensure comparability via alinear transformation (scale of 1 to 100).

Appendices161

Table 15 continued.

Data are from Gallup Analytics,
which presents a detailed
assessment of global attitudes formore than 100 countries.40

Data are from Gallup Analytics,
which presents a detailed
assessment of global attitudes formore than 100 countries.41

Data are from Gallup Analytics,
which presents a detailed
assessment of global attitudes formore than 100 countries.42

Acceptance of
Immigrants

Acceptance ofMinorities

Data are from World Bank Global
FINDEX which provides data on
how individuals save, borrow,
make payments, and manage risks.
The indicators in the 2014 Global
Financial Inclusion (Global FINDEX)
database are drawn from survey data
covering almost 150,000 people
in 143 economies – representing
more than 97 percent of the world’s
population. 39

Ability to Obtain
Emergency
Funds

Same Sex Rights

The percentage of respondents age 15+ who report that in case of an emergency it is not at all possible for them tocome up with 1/20 of gross national income (GNI) per capita in local currency within the next month. The potential
data values range from 100 percent of respondents to 0 percent of respondents reporting that they are capable ofcoming up with 1/20 of gross national income per capita in their local country within the next month. Data are from2014.

Data are from the World Bank's
World Development Indicators. 38

Gini Coefficient

Factor Four:Disenfranch­ised Groups

The variable Gini Coefficient is a measure of income inequality. This measure ranges from a value of 0, whichindicates absolute income equality, to 100, which indicates absolute income inequality. Data are from the mostrecent year in the period 2005 to 2013.

Data are from The Global Peace
Index, which measures the level ofpeace in 162 countries according
to 22 qualitative and quantitative
indicators aligned with the absencesof violence and fear of violence. 37

Violent Crime

The variable Acceptance of Minorities measures the proportionally representative percentage of respondents
who responded that their region is "not a good place" in direct response to the question: "Is the city or area where
you live a good place or not a good place for racial and ethnic minorities?" 0 represents lower vulnerability, 100
represents higher vulnerability. Data are from 2016.

The variable Acceptance of Immigrants measures the proportionally representative percentage of respondents
who responded that their region is "not a good place" in direct response to the question: "Is the city or area you live
a good place or not a good place to live for immigrants from other countries?" 0 represents lower vulnerability, 100
represents higher vulnerability. Data are from 2016.

The variable Same Sex Rights measures the proportionally representative percentage of respondents who
responded that their region is "not a good place" in direct response to the question: "Is the city or area where
you live a good place or not a good place to live for gay or lesbian people?" 0 represents lower vulnerability, 100
represents higher vulnerability. Data are from 2016.

The variable Violent Crime measures the peacefulness of a society based on the likelihood of violent crime. These
data are calculated on a five-point scale, where a value of 1 indicates a country that is "most peaceful," and a valueof 5 indicates a country that is "least peaceful." This assessment by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) based on
the question, “Is violent crime likely to pose a significant problem for government and/or business over the next two
years?” Country analysts assess this question on a quarterly basis. Data are from 2016

The variable Confidence in the Judicial System measures the proportionally representative percentage of
respondents who responded "no" in direct response to the question: "In this country, do you have confidence in[the] judicial system and courts?" Data are from 2016.

Data are from Gallup Analytics,
which presents a detailed
assessment of global attitudes formore than 100 countries. 36

Confidence in
Judicial Systems

Variable Description Min-max normalisation has been performed on all variables to ensure comparability via alinear transformation (scale of 1 to 100).

FactorThree:
Inequality

Data Description and Source

Variable Name

Factor162
Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 15 continued.

This indicator measures the number and duration of conflicts that occur within a specific country's legal boundaries.
Information for this indicator is sourced from three datasets from Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP): the BattleRelated Deaths Dataset, Non-State Conflict Dataset and One-sided Violence Dataset. The score for a country isdetermined by adding the scores for all individual conflicts that have occurred within that country's legal boundaries
over the last five years, based on the following factors: 1. Number: a) the number of interstate armed conflicts,
internal armed conflict (civil conflict), internationalised internal armed conflicts, one-sided conflict and non-state
conflict located within a country's legal boundaries, b) If a conflict is a war (1,000+ battle-related deaths) it receives
a score of one; if it is an armed conflict (25-999 battle-related deaths) it receives a score of 0.25. 2. Duration: a)a score is assigned based on the number of years out of the last five that conflict has occurred. For example, if
a conflict last occurred five years ago that conflict will receive a score of one out of five. The cumulative conflictscores are then added and banded to establish a country's score. Scores range from 1 out of 5 to 5 out of 5. A scoreof 1 indicates no internal conflicts and a score of 5 indicates very high levels of internal conflict. Data are from the2016 Global Peace Index Indicators.
This variable measures the number of displaced persons. These data represent the total number of displaced(internally displaced, returned internally displaced, returned refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons) by
territory of origin. For 2015 data where an * is used to indicate between 1-4 individuals to protect their identities,
we retained the value of 1 person. 0 = low displacement 100 = high displacement of our normalised data, but asreported the data values range from 1 person, which is small displacement, to values over 7,800,000 for the highest
displacement in 2014. Data are from 2015.

Data are from The Global Peace
Index, which measures the level ofpeace in 162 countries according
to 22 qualitative and quantitative
indicators aligned with the absencesof violence and fear of violence.44

Data are from UNHCR.45

Internal Conflicts
FoughtInternallyDisplaced
Persons

The variable Impact of Terrorism is drawn from the scores calculated for the Global Terrorism Index, whichmeasures the number of deaths, injuries, property damage and psychological impact resulting from terrorism in 162
countries. Data are from the 2016 Global Terrorism Index and is scored on a 1 to 10 scale, where 1 is low impact and
10 represents high impact of terrorism.

Data are from the Global Terrorism
Index, Institute for Economics andPeace (IEP).43

Impact ofTerrorism

Variable Description Min-max normalisation has been performed on all variables to ensure comparability via alinear transformation (scale of 1 to 100).

Factor Five:
Effects ofConflict

Data Description and Source

Variable Name

FactorAppendices163

Table 15 continued.

164

Global Slavery Index 2018

Data limitations
There are several areas of data limitations relevant toour vulnerability model that should be kept in mind asthese results are interpreted. These major limitations
include: 1) concept-variable consistency or the fit of thevulnerability variables to the real world phenomena
they are approximating in our model, 2) data availability,transparency, and publication regularity, 3) lag inadministrative data reflecting real world situations on the
ground, 4) collinearity checks on our variables that resulted
in dropping several empirically redundant but conceptuallyimportant variables such as corruption, gender inequality
and environmental performance, and 5) data correction
methods for missing data, such as imputation.
In developing a theoretically based model of vulnerability tomodern slavery, there are several common challenges thatmust be overcome. Global models of vulnerability will facedata limitations in terms of available data covering a majorityof our 167 countries for prevalence and vulnerability. Allvariables included in the Vulnerability Model must covermost of our 167 countries, be published regularly, andexplain clearly how these measures were developed. Then
there is the conceptual exercise of ensuring that thesemeasured variables match the phenomena we seek tocapture in our model.

This exercise in ensuring concept-variable consistency isoften limited by data availability but requires the intentional
selection of variables that represent the potential risks that
individuals vulnerable to modern slavery may face across a
broad array of potential factors consistent with the areas of
insecurity reflected by human security theory.
Lags in administrative data also affect our Vulnerability
Model, as even the most recent information may still notreflect current situations on the ground at this moment.
Finally, as a result of standard statistical methods to refine
our model, we perform collinearity checks on our variables
to ensure that we do not retain redundant variables.
However, as a result of this process, we were required todrop empirically redundant but conceptually importantmeasures such as Corruption, Gender Inequality, andEnvironmental Performance. We must also note that wehave employed imputation to resolve missing data issues
for Dimensions 1 and 2 for above 51 percent missing data
and for Dimensions 3, 4, and 5 for above 50 percent
missing data by using regional averages. Where thesemissing data thresholds were met, we replaced missing
data points with subregional averages for the affectedvariable. These efforts ensured that missing data points
were supplemented with regionally specific trends andinformation on affected vulnerability variables.

Portrait of Moctar, 19. Nouakchott, Mauritania. Since hisbirth, Moctar have been a slave in a Moorish family withhis mother and brother. In 2012, after several attempts,
he managed to escape and met an activist from the antislavery movement. His family refused to leave with him.
His mother was even against his release and gave witness
against him." When I was younger, my mother told me every
night that we must respect our masters, because their caste
is higher than ours, and that they are saints," says Moctar.
He has very bad memories of this experience because of thebad treatment he was a victim of; the scars are not only in
his mind but also in his body. One year after his release, heentered school at the age of 13. He now wishes to become alawyer to fight for the cause of the Haratins.
Photo credit: Seif Kousmate

Appendices

165

166

Global Slavery Index 2018

APPENDIX 2:

Part B: Global Slavery Index Prevalence Estimation

While measuring the number of people in modern slavery
remains a challenge, substantial improvements have been
made in this field in recent years. In 2017, the inaugural
Global Estimates of Modern Slavery were produced by
the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Walk
Free Foundation (WFF) in partnership with the International
Organization for Migration (IOM). The regional estimates
produced through this collaboration form the starting point
for the estimation of national level estimates presented here.

Global Estimates of Modern Slavery
The Global Estimates were comprised of two sub-estimates:
an estimate of forced labour and an estimate of forced
marriage. The sub-estimate of forced labour was thenfurther broken down into three categories: forced labourin the private economy, forced sexual exploitation, andstate-imposed forced labour.

FIGURE 1
Typology of modern slavery

Modern Slavery

State-Imposed
Forced Labour

Forced Labour

Forced Marriage

Forced Labour
Exploitation

Forced Sexual Expoitation of Adults& Commercial Sexual Exploitationof Children

Sugarcane cutters transported in a cattle truck fromtheir lodgings to the field in the morning. In Bahia State,
Northeastern Brazil there are still cases of sugarcane
workers subjected to debt bondage and modern slavery.
Photo credit: Ricardo Funari/Brazil Photos/
LightRocket via Getty Images

Appendices

As no single source provides data that are suitable for themeasurement of all forms of modern slavery, a combined
methodological approach was adopted for the Global
Estimates of Modern Slavery, drawing on three sources ofdata to calculate the sub-estimates:
1 / The central element of the methodology is the use of
54 specially designed, national probabilistic surveys
involving interviews with more than 71,000 respondents
across 48 countries. The estimates of forced labour inthe private economy (excluding the sex industry) andforced marriage were derived from these surveys. Only
cases of modern slavery that occurred between 2012
and 2016 were included in these estimates, and all
situations of forced labour were counted in the country
where the exploitation took place. In the five-yearreference period for the estimates, while surveys wereconducted in 48 countries, men, women, and children
were reported to have been exploited in 79 countries.46
2 / Administrative data from IOM’s databases of assisted
victims of trafficking were used in combination withthe 54 datasets to estimate forced sexual exploitationand forced labour of children, as well as the durationof forced labour exploitation. This involved calculating
the ratio of adults to children, and also of “sexual
exploitation” cases to “labour” cases in the IOM
dataset, which contained information on 30,000 victimsof trafficking around the world who had received
assistance from the agency. These ratios were thenapplied to the estimates taken from the survey data167

on forced labour of adults to arrive at an estimate of
the number of children in forced labour and anotherestimate of “sexual exploitation.”
3 / As the surveys focused on the non-institutionalised
population, meaning that people in prisons, labour camps
or military facilities, and other institutional settings are
not sampled, the surveys are not suitable for estimatingstate-imposed forced labour. Instead, the estimate ofstate-imposed forced labour was derived from validated
secondary sources and a systematic review of commentsfrom the ILO Committee of Experts on the Applicationof Conventions and Recommendations relating to stateimposed forced labour.
Each sub-estimate was initially calculated as a flow estimate;that is, the total number of persons who were victims ofmodern slavery during a specified period of time between
2012 and 2016. The flow estimate was then converted intoa stock estimate; that is, the average number of persons
in modern slavery at a given point in time during the 2012
to 2016 reference period. The stock estimate is calculated
by multiplying the total flow by the average duration (theamount of time in which people were trapped in forced
labour) of a spell of modern slavery. The average durationof modern slavery was determined from the database of
the IOM, containing records of assisted victims of trafficking
who were registered during or after 2012.
A detailed explanation of the methodology underpinning
the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery is available online.47

168

Global Slavery Index 2018

MEASURING THE PREVALENCE OF MODERN SLAVERY THROUGH SURVEYS
In 2014, the Walk Free Foundation began using surveys as the core element of the methodology to estimate the prevalenceof modern slavery. This began with a trial in a small number of countries via the Gallup World Poll48 and has since expanded
to cover 48 countries49 (see Figure 2 for a regional breakdown of the number of countries surveyed). These surveys form
the central component of the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery.
FIGURE 2Countries of exploitation identified from the 48 countries surveyed

Surveyed Countries

Countries Identified by people surveyed elsewhere

Due to the limited time available for each interview, thequestions asked were direct and designed to identify casesthat fall into two broad categories: unfree labour and forced
marriage. Initially developed in 2014, the questions were
tested in a small number of countries and the results werepositive; respondents generally understood the questions,recalled the information being sought, wanted to provide
the information, and could respond in the format required.
Since then, a few refinements have been made, such as in2015 to ask respondents to explain the experience in theirown words, and in 2016 to get a more accurate assessmentof the number of children who may be forced to work.
Surveys were conducted only in countries where the World
Poll survey is delivered through face to face interviews,
as the sensitive nature of the questions means thatinterviewers need to read non-verbal cues, to observe
where clarification may be needed, and to build rapport
with respondents. Respondents were initially asked “Haveyou or has anyone in your immediate family…
»» Ever been forced to work by an employer or a recruiter?
»» Ever been forced to work to repay a debt with an
employer or recruiter and were not allowed to leave?
»» Ever been offered one kind of work, but then wereforced to do something else and not allowed to leave?

Not Surveyed»» Including children, ever had to work in order to help
another family member who was forced to work by
an employer?
»» Including children, ever been forced to work for an
employer so that another person would receive a job,land, money or other resources?
»» Ever been forced to marry?”
When a respondent answered “yes” to any of thesequestions, they were then asked a series of questions
to learn more about the experience, including when andwhere it occurred, the modes of coercion applied to keep
victims from leaving that work, the type of work the victims
were forced to do, and, in the case of forced marriage,
whether they consented to the marriage.
Since 2014, more than 71,000 people have been interviewed
through a total of 54 surveys conducted in 48 countries. The
countries surveyed to date represent over half of the world’s
population and form the most extensive survey programon modern slavery ever undertaken. Cases of modern
slavery have been identified in every country surveyed,which is extraordinary given that the sampling does nottarget hot spots or vulnerable populations.50 Although themethodology continues to be refined, early indications arethat this approach holds great promise for measuring what
had been thought to be unmeasurable. Further information
about the modern slavery surveys is available online.51

Appendices

From global and regional to national
estimates
The national estimates presented in this Global Slavery
Index were calculated52 using individual and countrylevel risk factors of modern slavery. The final set of risk
factors were selected from an exhaustive list of variables
to optimally predict confirmed cases of forced labour andforced marriage. The model was then used to generate
average predicted probabilities of modern slavery bycountry. The regional totals in the Global Estimates ofModern Slavery were then apportioned based on eachcountry’s average predicted probability of modern slavery.
This process involved the following key steps:
1 / Identifying risk factors of modern slavery. Using
national surveys that included questions on
experiences of forced labour and forced marriage to
identify which variables were statistically associatedwith respondents in the survey who had been
victimised, versus those who had not been victimised.
This included using a series of statistical tests to identify
relationships between instances of victimisation andother variables collected through the survey process(such as age, gender, marital status, education, urban/
rural, employment, life evaluation, business ownership,
and ability to live on current income). Country-level
predictors of risk from the most recent Global Slavery
Index Vulnerability Model were also included.
2 / Predicting modern slavery. These risk factors wereused to build a statistical model that best predicts
occurrence of modern slavery at the individual level.
3 / Estimating prevalence and aligning with Global
Estimates of Modern Slavery regional estimates.
Individual predictions were aggregated into risk
scores at the country level. Whereas survey data on
forced labour and forced marriage are not available forevery country, a broader set of survey data covering
variables such as age, gender, marital status and so on
was available for 147 countries.53 Country risk scores
were used to estimate country prevalence, based on
the extent to which the country risk score deviatedfrom the average regional risk scores. For example, if
a country had the exact same risk score as the relevant
region in the Global Estimates, then it was assumed
that the prevalence in the country was the same as in
the region.
4 / Final calculation of estimated prevalence. Number ofvictims was then estimated by applying the estimatedprevalence to population data for each country. To this“base” estimate, an estimate of state-imposed forced
labour was added to determine the final estimatedprevalence of all forms of modern slavery.

169

The process followed in each of these steps is detailed
below:

1/ Identifying risk factors of modern
slavery
Data and variables
First, individual and country-level variables that havea significant relationship with forced labour or forced
marriage at the individual level were identified. Data forthis analysis were taken from Gallup World Poll (GWP)
surveys conducted in 2014, 2015, and 2016,54 including
a set of surveys with a module on modern slavery used
to estimate the risk model, and a broader set of surveys
used for prediction purposes, as well as country-level risk
variables from the Global Slavery Index Vulnerability Model.

Estimation data and outcome variables
Estimation data were drawn from 54 surveys conducted in 48
countries which included a module on Modern Slavery, witha total sample of 71,158 individual interviews. This included:»» Fifty-three national surveys conducted through the
GWP in 48 countries between 2014 and 2016, with a
total sample of 57,158 individual interviews.
»» A 2016 survey covering 15 Indian states: Andhra
Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh,
Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana,Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, with a total sample
of 14,000 individual interviews.
Cases of forced labour and forced marriage were identified
with a series of screening and follow up questions as describedearlier. On the basis of these questions, victims of forced
labour were identified according to the following criteria:»» The work was involuntary (“Yes” to any of thescreening questions), AND»» The work was under coercion or the menace of apenalty, AND»» The work occurred in the last five years.
Victims of forced marriage were identified according to thefollowing criteria:55»» The marriage was involuntary (“yes” to the screening
question), AND»» The marriage had occurred without their consent(forced marriage).

170

Global Slavery Index 2018

Prediction data and predictor variables
A broader set of data (“Prediction data”) was drawn from433 GWP national surveys conducted in 155 countries
between 2014 and 2016, with a total sample of 451,161
individual interviews. A total of 157 variables that could
potentially be used to predict forced labour or forced
marriage status were identified using the five dimensionsof the Walk Free Foundation Vulnerability Model as anorganising framework. These included:»» One hundred twenty-two individual-level variablesfrom the GWP core questionnaire, which collects
information on basic demographic variables such as
the respondent’s age, gender, educational attainment,
marital status, employment status, urban/rural location,and number of adults (15 and older) and children(under 15) in the household, as well as developmentoriented topic areas including law and order, foodand shelter, health, government and politics, businessand economics, citizen engagement, education andfamilies, environment and energy, social issues,
religion and ethics, work, and wellbeing.
»» Thirty-five country-level variables from the Walk Free
Foundation Vulnerability Model.56
Not all GWP variables were fielded in each survey
country57 during each of the three data periods (2014, 2015,2016), which lead to varying levels of geographic coverage.
A list of 19 independent variables with low levels of missing
data was identified to maximize geographic coverage ofa “base” driver model. In addition to the “base” model,
four additional models were created with an increasing
number of predictor variables, and corresponding decreasein geographic coverage.

2/ Predicting modern slavery
Individual-level models
Several steps were undertaken, using the data noted above
to identify a best-fitting prediction model. Forced labourand forced marriage were modelled separately as the two
distinct forms of slavery are expected to be predicted bydifferent subsets of variables. The probability of a given
respondent58 reporting a case of modern slavery wasestimated for each outcome (forced labour and forced
marriage) separately, using a logit model59 of the form:

Equation 1

Where the logit of the probabilityof FL/FM for eachindividual is a function of a constant term
(intercept), avector of individual-level demographic control variables
with values varying for each individual , and with unknown
coefficients , a vector of individual-level predictor variables, with values varying for each individual , and with unknown
coefficients , and an individual error term .
Of the 157 variables available, a subset of variables was
selected based on statistical and theoretical criteria
in order to enhance the predictive power of the model,
while maintaining explanatory relevance. Variables were
excluded on the basis of having no significant association
with either forced labour or forced marriage:»» no multivariate significant association with either
forced labour or forced marriage when entered within
their respective geographic block, and»» a high degree of multicollinearity, as expressed byvariance inflation factors of 3 and above.
Finally, when variables are collinear or multivariate
insignificant, priority was given to variables with greater
theoretical relevance. For example, “confidence in judicial
system,” which relates to issues of regulatory quality thathave a direct bearing on modern slavery, is preferred over“confidence in financial system,” which may only have anindirect relationship with modern slavery.
Variables were entered into six models (numbered 1-6 inTable 1) to allow for the inclusion of a successively moreexhaustive set of predictors. These models are nested
hierarchically, with each successive model including all
variables in the prior models, running from the simplest
model that includes only seven demographic factors, to an“extended plus” model including 33 predictors of forced
labour and 29 predictors of forced marriage (see Table 1
for final list of variables).

Appendices

171

TABLE 1
Predictor Variables in Final Models
Model

Predictors of forced labour

Predictors of forced marriage

1. Demographic

Age
Urbanicity
Gender
Educational Attainment
Marital Status
Employment Status

Age
Urbanicity
Gender
Educational Attainment
Marital Status
Employment Status

2. BaseNot Enough Money: FoodLife Today (0-10)
Currently Own a BusinessFeelings about HH income
Health Problems

Not Enough Money: Food

3. Indices

Negative Experiences
Youth Development
Community Attachment
Civic Engagement
Law & Order

Negative Experiences
Youth Development

4. Medium

Corruption in Government
Confidence in Judicial System
Confidence in National Government
Financial Inclusion (country)

Safe Walking Alone
Regulatory Quality (country)
Disabled Rights (country)
Coming Up with Money (country)
Minorities (country)
International Conflict (country)

5. Extended

City Economy Getting Better
Move Permanently to Another Country
Economic Conditions
Born in Country
Treated with Respect
Smile or LaughExperienced Anger Yesterday
Public Transportation Systems
Quality of Water

City Economy Getting Better
Move Permanently to Another Country
National Economy Getting Better
Standard of Living Better
Experienced Enjoyment Yesterday
Move Away or Stay
City: Quality Healthcare

6. Extended Plus

Sent Financial Help

Sent Financial Help
Approval of EU Leadership
Approval of US Leadership

The models were estimated using survey data from the 48
countries where the modern slavery module was included.
In order to estimate risk of modern slavery in countries
available in the GWP without a modern slavery module, theprobability of a positive outcome for each individual in theprediction dataset is calculated and then aggregated into aweighted average predicted probability at the country level.
Table 2 shows the sample sizes and number of countries
included in each of the estimation and prediction models.

The demographic factors-only models showed relatively
poor performance, so they were not used for prediction
purposes. The “base” models, including a relatively small
number of variables, have the widest geographic coverage(152 countries). The “extended plus” models, with thelargest set of predictors, have the narrowest geographic
coverage (116 countries for forced labour and 110 countries
for forced marriage).

172

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 2
Sample sizes and number of countries for each estimation and prediction model60
Forced labour
Model

Estimation
SamplePrediction
SampleForced marriage
Prediction
Countries

Estimation
SamplePrediction
SamplePrediction
Countries

1. Demographics

68,628

N/A

N/A

68,516

N/A

N/A

2. Base65,837388,146

152

67,518434,905

152

3. Indices50,946

351,499

141

53,518374,512147

4. Medium

47,967

315,512

121

48,457306,176112

5. Extended

47,966309,544

120

48,457289,306

111

6. Extended Plus

23,148279,171

116

48,457286,347

110

The predictive performance of each model was evaluatedusing a broad set of post-estimation goodness-of-fit
metrics,61 which were calculated on the same set of
respondents (i.e. that had data available for all variables)
to ensure comparability. Results indicated good predictive
power (AUC values greater than .70) for all models. Thebase model is used as it is most useful for estimation, but
the other models, with a greater complexity in terms ofpredictors but similar predictive performance, are useful tovalidate the robustness of the base model, which maximises
geographic coverage (see Table 1).

Multi-level models
After identifying the “base” model as the best for prediction
and maximising geographic coverage, multilevel models(MLM) were fitted to the data in order to enhance thepredictions of the individual-level models and take into
account the hierarchical nature of these data. MLMs allow
for the extrapolation of model results beyond the sampleof 48 countries.
All multilevel models were estimated using Bayesian62
applied regression modelling.63 The individual-level basemodel was fitted before being expanded sequentially. Firstby allowing intercepts to vary across countries according
to a random effect:
Equation 2

Equation (2) is the same as the individual-level regression
equation (1), with the addition of a subscript to classify
individuals in countries, and an additional coefficientand its associated distribution, representing a randomcoefficient that is allowed to vary by country.

Next, by modelling country-level variation in order toimprove our predictions for countries where there was nomodern slavery survey with country-level predictor
representing the vulnerability score , with values varying
for each country , and with an unknown coefficient :Equation 3

The Vulnerability Model is ideal for this purpose, as it
incorporates a robust set of external datasets aggregatedto explain or predict the prevalence of modern slavery.
An examination of the association between country-level
prevalence estimates and vulnerability scores confirmed amoderate correlation (Pearson r =.33).
The individual-level models showed that owning a businesssignificantly increases the risk of being a victim of forced
labour. Members of the Walk Free Foundation’s Expert
Working Group indicated that this result was surprising,as business ownership was expected to be a protective
factor and hypothesized that the result could be driven
by “necessity entrepreneurs”: individuals who are forced
into starting a small-scale business because of a lack ofother income-generating opportunities.64 A preliminary setof regional regression analyses confirmed that businessownership was only a significant predictor of forced labourin South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, where not owninga business has a protective effect. Finally a cross-levelinteraction effect for “business ownership” was introduced:

Appendices

173

Equation 4With
representing the interaction between
business-ownership dummy , with a coefficientthatvaries for the two levels of regional dummy variable .

1 / Disaggregate regional-level estimates of modern
slavery from The Global Estimates into 12 homogeneous
subregions (11 broad ILO sub-regions, plus split
Southeast Asia and Pacific).

Model Performance

2 / Calculate subregional level prevalence of modern slavery
for each subregion (for example, South Asia = 0.77%).

An examination of model performance65 shows that all
MLMs perform similarly. In the case of the forced labourmodels, all MLMs perform similarly, and better than the
fixed-effects model. In the case of the forced marriage
models, differences were negligible.
Actual vs. fitted prevalence plots for the 48 countries withmodern slavery survey data showed a very close fit, without
any clear outliers. The introduction of country fixed (andthen random) effects represented a major improvement
above and beyond the individual-level models, which reliedon regional fixed-effects. While the simplicity of the country
fixed-effects model is attractive, this approach would notachieve our goal of estimating slavery in countries that are
not included in the sample.
In order to exemplify the benefit of the more complex MLMs,
country intercepts were removed from the predictions
to simulate new data including countries not previously
surveyed. The random intercepts model showed a poorer fit
with the actual values than the other two models (a perfect
fit is exemplified by the red dotted line). A random intercepts
model with country level predictors and (in the case offorced labour) a cross-level interaction provides the mostcomprehensive framework to undertake these inferences
and was the model on which estimates were based.
A fuller description of the process by which the final model
was achieved is set out in a forthcoming publication.66

3/ Estimating prevalence and aligningwith regional estimates from The
Global Estimates
As summarised above, several concomitant risk factors formodern slavery, including demographic factors, such asage, gender, and employment status – but also a variety
of socio-economic and psychographic risk factors, such as
feelings about household income, life evaluation scores,
and negative experienced affect – were identified in theanalysis. Based on these risk factors, as well as countrylevel vulnerability scores, a hierarchical Bayes modelling
approach was used to accurately predict the forced labourand forced marriage status of individuals and the average
prevalence of modern slavery at the country level.
Average weighted predicted probabilities were thencalculated for forced labour and forced marriage using
this best-fitting predictive model.67 The process to arrive atestimated prevalence of modern slavery was undertaken
in several steps, as follows:

3 / Impute risk factors for 20 countries that are missing GWP
data, as an average over several multiple imputation
approaches (hot deck, amelia, glm, random forests).
4 / Adjust country risk by country of exploitation. The
basic premise is to take a region such as “ReceivingSoutheast Asia,” with Singapore, Malaysia, andThailand, and apply an adjustment factor equal to theratio of victims identified in the national surveys in
Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand to total exploited
victims in the region. If no national surveys wereconducted in a given region, we estimate that theprevalence is equal to modelled risk multiplied bypopulation. This is calculated using the following steps:a.

Calculate number of victims identified by the country
surveys who are exploited in a different country.

b. Code countries as either “net sending” or “netreceiving" (see Table 3). This was done on the basisof available information from Global Slavery Index
2016, UNODC Global Report on TIP 2016, US TIP
2017, GRETA, and ILO Global Estimates of MigrantWorkers.68 Sending versus receiving status wascoded by two independent coders. If there wasagreement, the common code was maintained.
However, if conflicting codes were allocated, thedecisions were jointly reviewed and often resolved.
In the event that no agreement was reached, a third
party would be consulted.
c.

Calculate aggregate number of victims by place of
exploitation in sending and receiving areas.

d. Adjust down the risk score of sending regions thathave a lower number of victims being exploitedin country.
e.

Adjust up the risk score of receiving regions thathave a higher number of victims being exploitedin country. For example, the risk in “receiving”
Southeast Asia (Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia) is
adjusted up by a factor of 1.58, while “sending”
Southeast Asia is adjusted down by a factor of 0.94.

174

Global Slavery Index 2018

5 / Taking adjusted country risks, estimate prevalencein a country based on the regional prevalence andthe distance between the adjusted country risk andthe weighted average regional risk score, following
these steps:a.

Normalise the adjusted and imputed country risk
scores to a 1-100 range, with 1=min risk, 100= max risk.

b. Multiply the normalised risk score by the country
population.
c.

Calculate regional prevalence by dividing
aggregates for total modern slavery (excluding
state-imposed forced labour) over total population.

d. Calculate average normalised regional score bydividing the sum of normalised risk scores by thecountry population.
e. Calculate country prevalence by multiplying
the regional average by the ratio of normalised
country risk score over the average normalised
regional score.

To simplify, since normalised modern slavery risk in
Afghanistan (39.1) is 2.89 times higher than the average riskin the South Asia region (13.6), we estimate that prevalencein Afghanistan is 2.89 times greater than the regional
average, or about 2.2 percent.
Only one exception is made, for Mauritania, where thesurvey estimate (2.1 percent) is used rather than themodelled risk score due to the distinct nature of slavery
in the country. The practice is entrenched in Mauritaniansociety with slave status being inherited and deeply rooted
in social castes and the wider social system. Those owned
by masters often have no freedom to own land and cannot
claim dowries from their marriages nor inherit property
or possessions from their families.69 Given the evidence
available that supports the higher survey estimate, that
estimate is taken from Mauritania, and other countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa are adjusted down to ensure totals arealigned with the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery.

People march towards the sea holding banners and candles in April, 2015 in Sliema, in the outskirts
of Valletta, Malta. The vigil was held in memory of over 650 migrants who had lost their lives at
sea in what is being described as the worst tragedy in the Mediterranean so far. The shipwreck took
place last Saturday when a vessel holding some 700 migrants was shipwrecked off the coast of Libya
leaving only 28 survivors. So far only 24 corpses have been collected, and the Italian authorities areholding two of the survivors (the captain and a crew member) on suspicion of human trafficking.
Photo credit: Raymond Attard / Barcroft Media via Getty Images

Appendices

175

TABLE 3
Classification of countries as “net sending” vs “net receiving”
Country

Net sending/net receiving

Country

Net sending/net receiving

Afghanistan

Sending

Dominican Republic

Receiving

Albania

Sending

EcuadorReceiving

Algeria

Receiving

Egypt

Receiving

AngolaReceiving

El Salvador

Sending

Argentina

Receiving

Equatorial Guinea

Sending

Armenia

Sending

Eritrea

Sending

Australia

Receiving

Estonia

Sending

Austria

Receiving

Ethiopia

Sending

Azerbaijan

SendingFinland

Receiving

BahrainReceivingFranceReceiving

Bangladesh

Sending

Gabon

Receiving

Barbados

Receiving

GambiaSending

BelarusSending

Georgia

Receiving

Belgium

Receiving

Germany

Receiving

Benin

SendingGhana

Sending

Bolivia, Plurinational State of

Sending

GreeceReceiving

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Sending

GuatemalaSending

Botswana

Receiving

GuineaSendingBrazilReceiving

Guinea-Bissau

Sending

Brunei Darussalam

Receiving

GuyanaReceiving

Bulgaria

Sending

Haiti

Sending

Burkina Faso

Sending

Honduras

Sending

BurundiSendingHong Kong

Receiving

CambodiaSending

Hungary

Sending

Cameroon

Sending

Iceland

Receiving

CanadaReceiving

India

Sending

Cape Verde

SendingIndonesia

Sending

Central African Republic

SendingIran, Islamic Republic ofReceiving

Chad

Sending

Iraq

Sending

Chile

Receiving

Ireland

Receiving

China

Receiving

IsraelReceiving

Colombia

Sending

Italy

Receiving

Congo

Sending

Jamaica

Sending

Congo, Democratic Republicof theSending

Japan

ReceivingJordanReceiving

Costa Rica

Receiving

Kazakhstan

Receiving

Côte d'Ivoire

Sending

Kenya

Receiving

Croatia

Receiving
Sending

Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)

Sending

Cuba
Cyprus

Receiving

Receiving

Czech Republic

Receiving

Korea, Republic of(South Korea)

Denmark

Receiving

KosovoSendingDjibouti

Sending

KuwaitReceiving176

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 3 continued.
Country

Net sending/net receiving

Country

Net sending/net receiving

Kyrgyzstan

Sending

RussiaReceiving

Lao People's Democratic
Republic

Sending

RwandaSending

Saudi Arabia

Receiving

LatviaSending

SenegalSending

LebanonReceiving

SerbiaSending

LesothoSending

Sierra Leone

Sending

Liberia

Sending

Singapore

Receiving

Libya

Receiving

Slovakia

Sending

Lithuania

Receiving

Slovenia

Receiving

Luxembourg

Receiving

Somalia

Sending

Macedonia, the former Yugoslav
Republic ofReceiving

South Africa

Receiving

Madagascar

Sending

South Sudan

Sending

Malawi

Sending

Spain

Receiving

Malaysia

Receiving

Sri Lanka

Sending

Mali

Sending

Sudan

Sending

Mauritania

Sending

Suriname

Receiving

Mauritius

Sending

Swaziland

Sending

MexicoSending

SwedenReceiving

Moldova, Republic ofSending

Switzerland

Receiving

Mongolia

SendingSyrian Arab Republic

SendingMontenegro

Receiving

TaiwanReceiving

MoroccoSendingTajikistan

Sending

MozambiqueSending

Tanzania, United Republic ofSending

MyanmarSending

ThailandReceiving

Namibia

Receiving

Timor-Leste

Sending

Nepal

SendingTogo

Sending

Netherlands

Receiving

Trinidad and Tobago

Receiving

New Zealand

Receiving

Tunisia

Receiving

Nicaragua

Sending

TurkeyReceiving

Niger

Sending

Turkmenistan

Sending

Nigeria

Sending

UgandaSending

NorwayReceiving

UkraineSending

Oman

Receiving

United Arab Emirates

Receiving

Pakistan

Receiving

United Kingdom

Receiving

PanamaReceiving

United States

Receiving

Papua New Guinea

Sending

Uruguay

SendingParaguay

SendingUzbekistan

Sending

Peru

Receiving

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofReceiving

Philippines

Sending

VietnamSending

PolandSending

Yemen

Sending

Portugal

Receiving

ZambiaSending

Qatar

Receiving

Zimbabwe

Sending

Romania

SendingAppendices

6 / A final calculation was performed to incorporate
existing estimates derived from multiple systems
estimation (MSE) in the Europe and Central Asia region.
The predictive models are built on information fromcountries where the World Poll, including the modern
slavery module, was conducted face-to-face (F2F).
Countries where the World Poll is only implemented
using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI)
have zero chance of selection for a modern slavery
survey, meaning that, at present, we are not able totest how the risk factors will behave in CATI countries.
Despite this, there is also no evidence to suggestthat the risk factors will not act in the same way, forexample, being female is very likely to remain a risk
factor for forced marriage and poverty a risk factor forforced labour.
Further, MSE has emerged as a suitable methodology
for estimation in countries where surveys are not used
and the methodology has been endorsed by several
governments and international organisations. Several
considerations precluded the use of MSE-estimatesalone, notably, (i) the methodology is at an early stage ofuse in the modern slavery space with several refinements
underway, and (ii) some forms of modern slavery, forexample, forced marriage are at present unlikely to be
captured in administrative records meaning that MSE
alone would lead to an underestimate.
While survey-based estimates are subject to a highlevel of uncertainty due to sampling and non-sampling
errors, the two available MSE estimates employed
different approaches and therefore show large variability
across countries with similar risk profiles. In light of theconsiderations set out above, the average of the modelderived prevalence estimates and MSE-based prevalence
estimates for the United Kingdom70 and The Netherlands71
were set as anchor points within the region. This wasapplied as follows:

a.

177

Countries within the Europe and Central Asia
subregions were divided into ‘MSE’ and ‘nonMSE’ sub-regions. In practice this aligns with CATI
vs. F2F countries in the Gallup World Poll. For
example, both Spain and Greece are in “Southern
Europe”, but Spain is CATI, and hence its estimate
is based on extrapolation from MSE, while Greece
is F2F, and hence its estimate is based on non-MSE
extrapolation (more below on each type).

b. Set anchor points and extrapolate to other MSE
countries: (i) Average prevalence estimate for
the UK was set as the anchor point for Northern
Europe (MSE sub-region, i.e. excluding Baltic states)and (ii) the average prevalence estimate for the
Netherlands was set as the anchor point for Western
Europe (all countries) and Southern Europe (MSE
sub-region).
c.		

The corresponding anchor point was thenextrapolated to other countries in the region basedon ratio of risk in the anchor to risk in the extrapolation
country. For example, if average prevalence in the
UK is 0.20% and modelled risk is 0.775, we estimatethat prevalence in Sweden is given by the ratio of its
risk to the UK’s risk, multiplied by the UK prevalence,or (0.645/0.775)*0.20%= 0.17%.

d. Adjust the prevalence of non-MSE countries in
Europe and Central Asia to ensure the total aligns
with the Global Estimate. The number of victims
from the Global Estimates who are unaccounted
for in Europe and Central Asia following the MSE
adjustment were calculated, then prevalence in
non-MSE countries was calculated proportional
to the risk of each country relative to the non-MSE
population adjusted regional average risk.

178

Global Slavery Index 2018

4/ Final calculation of estimatedprevalence, including state-imposed
forced labour
The process outlined in steps 1 to 3 produces prevalence
estimates for all forms of modern slavery except stateimposed forced labour. Given the nationally-specificmanifestations of state-imposed forced labour where it
does occur, it was excluded from the steps outlined above.
The final step involves aggregating the estimate resulting
from the process set out above, with the estimates of stateimposed forced labour. A final estimate of the prevalence of
all forms of modern slavery is then calculated. The resulting
estimates are presented in Table 4.

TABLE 4
Estimated prevalence of modern slavery by country
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

Estimated prevalence(per 1,000 population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)**
Eritrea
BurundiCentral African Republic
Afghanistan
Mauritania
South Sudan
Pakistan
CambodiaIran, Islamic Republic ofSomalia
Congo, Democratic Republicof theMongolia
Sudan
Chad

104.6

2,640,000

25,244,000

93.0
40.0
22.3
22.2
21.4
20.5
16.8
16.8
16.2
15.5
13.7

451,000
408,000
101,000
749,000
90,000243,000
3,186,000
261,000
1,289,000
216,000
1,045,000

4,847,000
10,199,000
4,546,000
33,736,000
4,182,000
11,882,000
189,381,000
15,518,000
79,360,000
13,908,000
76,197,000

12.3
12.0
12.0

37,000465,000
168,000

2,977,000
38,648,000
14,009,000

RwandaTurkmenistan**
MyanmarBrunei Darussalam
Belarus
Papua New Guinea
Lao People's Democratic
Republic
ThailandSwaziland
Macedonia, the former Yugoslav
Republic of
Congo
GreeceGuineaLibya
Philippines
Timor-Leste
Nigeria
UgandaMadagascar
MalawiGuinea-Bissau
Liberia
Syrian Arab Republic*
AngolaDjibouti
Kenya
Malaysia
Albania
Cameroon
Togo

11.6
11.2
11.0
10.9
10.9
10.3
9.4

134,000
62,000575,000
5,000
103,000
81,00062,000

11,630,000
5,565,000
52,404,000
418,000
9,486,000
7,920,000
6,664,000

8.9
8.8
8.7

610,000
12,00018,00068,658,000
1,319,000
2,079,000

8.0
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.8

40,00089,00094,00048,000784,000
10,0001,386,000
304,000
182,000
131,000
13,00033,000136,000
199,000
7,000
328,000
212,000
20,000157,000
50,0004,996,000
11,218,000
12,092,000
6,235,000
101,716,000
1,241,000
181,182,000
40,145,000
24,234,000
17,574,000
1,771,000
4,500,000
18,735,000
27,859,000
927,000
47,236,000
30,723,000
2,923,000
22,835,000
7,417,000

CountryAppendices

179

Table 4 continued.
Rank

Country

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

Niger
Zimbabwe
TurkeyUkraineEquatorial Guinea
Tanzania, United Republic ofEthiopia
India
Croatia
Nepal
Côte d'Ivoire
Montenegro
GambiaLithuania
ZambiaVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic
of
Haiti
Egypt
RussiaMoldova, Republic of
Benin
Mozambique
Armenia
Uzbekistan**
Sierra Leone
Ghana
Iraq*
Gabon
Indonesia
Tajikistan**
Burkina Faso
Viet Nam
Bulgaria
Azerbaijan**Georgia
Romania
CyprusKazakhstan**
Lesotho
Kyrgyzstan**
Cape Verde
Dominican Republic
KosovoLatviaIsraelCuba
Bangladesh
Hungary
Estonia
Mali
Botswana
Singapore
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Honduras
PolandSerbiaNamibia
Yemen*
Trinidad and Tobago
Slovakia

62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105

Estimated prevalence(per 1,000 population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

6.7
6.7
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.6

133,000
105,000
509,000
286,000
7,000
336,000
614,000
7,989,000
25,000171,000
137,000
4,000
11,00017,00092,000174,000

19,897,000
15,777,000
78,271,000
44,658,000
1,175,000
53,880,000
99,873,000
1,309,054,000
4,236,000
28,656,000
23,108,000
628,000
1,978,000
2,932,000
16,101,000
31,155,000

5.6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.9

59,000518,000
794,000
22,00058,000152,000
16,000160,000
36,000133,000
174,000
9,000
1,220,000
39,00082,000421,000
32,00043,00017,00086,0005,000
75,0009,000
24,0002,000
42,0008,000
8,000
31,00043,000592,000
36,0005,000
62,0008,000
19,00012,00030,000128,000
30,0008,000
85,0004,000
16,00010,711,000
93,778,000
143,888,000
4,066,000
10,576,000
28,011,000
2,917,000
30,976,000
7,237,000
27,583,000
36,116,000
1,930,000
258,162,000
8,549,000
18,111,000
93,572,000
7,177,000
9,617,000
3,952,000
19,877,000
1,161,000
17,750,000
2,175,000
5,865,000
533,000
10,528,000
1,905,000
1,993,000
8,065,000
11,461,000
161,201,000
9,784,000
1,315,000
17,468,000
2,209,000
5,535,000
3,536,000
8,961,000
38,265,000
8,851,000
2,426,000
26,916,000
1,360,000
5,439,000

180

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 4 continued.
Rank

Country

106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137

GuatemalaNicaragua
Czech Republic
SenegalSouth Africa
China**
Barbados
Colombia
MexicoAlgeria
GuyanaJamaicaPeru
El Salvador
Portugal
Morocco
Italy
Ecuador
Spain
Suriname
Tunisia
Slovenia
Oman*
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Sri Lanka
IcelandUnited Kingdom
PanamaGermany
Belgium
FranceKorea, Republic of (South
Korea)**
Saudi Arabia*
Bahrain*
NorwayJordan*BrazilNetherlands
Austria
Lebanon*Switzerland
IrelandUnited Arab Emirates*
FinlandDenmarkParaguay
SwedenQatar*
Luxembourg
Kuwait*Hong Kong, China**
Argentina
United States
Costa Rica
Uruguay
Mauritius

138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161

Estimated prevalence(per 1,000 population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9

47,00018,00031,00043,000155,000
3,864,000<1,000131,000
341,000
106,000
2,000
7,000
80,00016,00026,00085,000145,000
39,000105,000
1,000
25,0005,000
9,000
23,00044,000<1,000136,000
8,000
167,000
23,000129,000
99,000

16,252,000
6,082,000
10,604,000
14,977,000
55,291,000
1,397,029,000
284,000
48,229,000
125,891,000
39,872,000
769,000
2,872,000
31,377,000
6,312,000
10,418,000
34,803,000
59,504,000
16,144,000
46,398,000
553,000
11,274,000
2,075,000
4,200,000
10,725,000
20,714,000
330,000
65,397,000
3,969,000
81,708,000
11,288,000
64,457,000
50,594,000

1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0

61,0003,000
9,000
17,000369,000
30,00015,00010,00014,0008,000
15,0009,000
9,000
11,00015,0004,000<1,000
6,000
10,00055,000403,000
6,000
4,000
1,000

31,557,000
1,372,000
5,200,000
9,159,000
205,962,000
16,938,000
8,679,000
5,851,000
8,320,000
4,700,000
9,154,000
5,482,000
5,689,000
6,639,000
9,764,000
2,482,000
567,000
3,936,000
7,246,000
43,418,000
319,929,000
4,808,000
3,432,000
1,259,000

Appendices

Rank

Country

162
163
164
165
166
167

Chile
Australia
New ZealandTaiwan, China**
CanadaJapan**

181

Estimated prevalence(per 1,000 population)

Estimated absolute
number of victims

Population

0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3

14,00015,0003,000
12,00017,00037,00017,763,000
23,800,000
4,615,000
23,486,000
35,950,000
127,975,000*Substantial gaps in data exist for the Arab States region and Gulf countries in particular. These gaps point to a significant underestimate of the extent ofmodern slavery in this region. As a result, the country-level estimates presented here are considered very conservative and should be interpreted cautiously.
**Substantial gaps in data exist for the Central and East Asia subregions where, with the exception of Mongolia, surveys cannot be conducted
for reasons such as (i) survey is only delivered face-to-face, (ii) survey is delivered only in the main language which many migrant workers do not
speak, or (iii) national authorities would not, or were unlikely to, consent to the module on modern slavery. Unlike several countries in Western
Europe where no surveys were conducted, none of the countries in these subregions were identified as sites of exploitation by respondents in
the 48 countries where surveys were implemented.

Children working in a ship propeller making factoryin Dhaka, Bangladesh in May, 2018. A new report by Overseas
Development Institute found that child labourers living in slums
worked an average of 64 hours each week, many in supply chainsconnected to the worlds most popular brands.
Photo credit: Zakir Hossain Chowdhury/NurPhoto via Getty Images

182

Global Slavery Index 2018

Data limitations
Limitations of the source data
As with all empirical research, there are some limitationsof the data used to produce the Global Estimates ofModern Slavery, within which the findings of this Index
should be interpreted.
First, the set of surveyed countries that was used to produce
the 2017 Global Estimates of Modern Slavery was treatedas a random sample of the world and the global figure wasestimated directly from that (that is, without first calculating
national estimates). However, the selection of the countries
to be surveyed was not random as countries were selected
for specific reasons, including:»» Countries where prevalence is expected to behigher, thereby increasing the chance of identifying
cases through a household survey. This leads tothe selection of more "developing" and/or "source"’
countries than "developed" countries as a random
sample survey is unlikely to identify cases in the latter;»» Where the mode of delivery is through face to facesurveys, as opposed to telephone interviews, and»» To ensure regional representation so that the surveys
could facilitate extrapolation.
Second, while regional estimates of prevalence of modern
slavery were presented in the Global Estimates of Modern
Slavery, critical gaps in available data were noted. Theseare particularly problematic in the Arab States, where only
two national surveys were undertaken, none of which wasin the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries despite theincidence of forced labour reported by different sources insuch sectors as domestic work and construction in the GCC.
Further, measurement of forced marriage among residentsof countries within the region is particularly problematicwhere there are no surveys. Taken together, these gaps
point to a significant underestimate of the extent of modern
slavery in this region.

Similarly, it is usually not possible to survey in countries thatare experiencing profound and current conflict, such as
Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, and parts of Nigeria
and Pakistan. Yet it is known that conflict is a significant risk
factor – the breakdown of the rule of law, the loss of social
supports, and the disruption that occurs with conflict all
increase risk of both forced labour and forced marriage.
The lack of data from countries experiencing conflict meansthat modern slavery estimates in regions in which conflictcountries are situated will understate the problem.
Similar coverage gaps exist for the Central and East Asia
subregions where a larger number of surveys (only one in
East Asia) were not able to be conducted for reasons that
included: (i) mode of delivery was only by telephone, (ii)limited survey languages, (iii) consent of national authorities
to the module on modern slavery was not given or was
highly unlikely. Further, for countries in these subregions,none were identified as the country where exploitation took
place by respondents in the 48 countries where surveys
were implemented. As a result of these data gaps, theestimates for countries within these subregions are likely
to be conservative.

Limitations of the risk modellingThis analysis is not without the limitations inherent toany cross-sectional research endeavour. Our selectionof variables is driven by both theoretical and statisticalconsiderations, but unfortunately the field of modern
slavery lacks a unifying causal theory that can be used to
inform variable selection. Finally, we have a limited sample
size of confirmed individual cases, which limits the extent towhich we can expand our predictive models and enhance
the accuracy of our predictions. Further surveys will leadto an increase in our sample, thereby enabling the studyof more complex effects and refinement of the modelling.

Appendices183

Comparability with previous estimates
Due to substantial differences in scope, methodologies,
regional groupings, and expanded data sources, the 2018
Global Slavery Index is not directly comparable to theprevious edition. These differences are due to the joint
development of the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery
and, accordingly, the changes in the estimated number ofvictims at the national level cannot be interpreted against
the previous Global Slavery Index. It is important to notethe key differences in how The Global Estimates, the 2018
Index national estimates, and the 2016 Index estimates
were calculated, these include:»» What we count: In the 2016 Index we identified
gaps in the measurement of children across all
forms of modern slavery and adults in forced sexual
exploitation. These gaps were addressed whendeveloping the methodology for the Global Estimates,
which drew on both survey and administrative datafrom IOM to calculate sub-estimates for forced sexual
exploitation and the forced labour exploitation ofchildren. In addition, a more systematic approach tothe measurement of state-imposed forced labour was
adopted for The Global Estimates and is used here.
The 2018 Index represents a “stock” estimate; that is,people in slavery on any given day in 2016.

»» Where we count, where exploitation happens:
The 2016 Index had too few survey countries toconsistently count victims where they were exploited,which is not the case in the 2017 Global Estimates,
which are based on a much larger number of survey
countries. This change had the impact of increasing
the number of victims counted in developed countries,
with the exception of the Arab States. As noted
previously, measures in that region are hampered byinsufficient data.
»» How we measure: While nationally representative
surveys remain central to the process, thecollaboration on a global estimate necessitateda change from the “bottom-up” approach of first
calculating national estimates and then aggregating
to a global total.
In the 2017 Global Estimates, the countries surveyed
were treated as a random sample of the entire world
and global and regional totals were estimated directlyfrom that without first calculating national estimates. In
the 2018 Index, national prevalence is calculated on thebasis of a predictive model that takes individual andcountry-level risk factors into account. The results arethen weighted such that they aggregate to the regional
totals from the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery.

184

Global Slavery Index 2018

APPENDIX 2:

Part C: Global Slavery Index Government Response Index

Governments play a critical role in the developing andimplementing the laws, policies, and programs that areneeded to prevent and respond to modern slavery. To
complement the prevalence estimates and assessment ofvulnerability, for the third year running the Global Slavery
Index includes an assessment of the actions governments
are taking to respond to modern slavery.
This assessment is based on tracking government progress
towards the achievement of five milestones:
1 / Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit
and remain out of slavery.
2 / Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively toprevent modern slavery.

Theoretical framework: crime
prevention theory
Our starting point for the assessment of government
responses is situational crime prevention theory.72 This isbased on the understanding that in order for the crime ofmodern slavery to occur, there needs to be a vulnerable
victim, a motivated offender, and the absence of a capableguardian. It also recognises that crime does not happen
in a vacuum, and that broad contextual factors like state
instability, discrimination, and disregard of human rights
are critical to any government response.

3 / Coordination occurs at the national and regional level,
and governments are held to account for their response.

Therefore, to reduce the prevalence of crime, thegovernment needs to:

4 / Risk factors such as attitudes, social systems, andinstitutions that enable modern slavery are addressed»» Reduce the opportunity for offenders to commit thecrime.
»» Increase the risks of offending.
»» Decrease the vulnerability of potential victims.
»» Increase the capacity of law enforcement and otherguardians.
»» Address the people or factors that enable or facilitateslavery.

5 / Government and business stop sourcing goods andservices produced by forced labour.

FIGURE 1
Situational crime prevention theory

Motivated
offenderContextual factors:
state instability,
discrimation,
disregard forhuman rights, etc.

MODERNSLAVERY
Vulnerable
victimAbsence ofa capable
guardianAppendices

Development of the conceptual
framework
Using this theoretical framework as a starting point anddrawing on the 2000 UN Trafficking Protocol,73 the 2014
Forced Labour Protocol (P029)74 and the 2005 European
Convention on Action against Trafficking Beings,75 as well as
on literature on effective responses to modern slavery,76 we
devised a conceptual framework of what constitutes astrong response to modern slavery. It is organised aroundthe five milestones outlined above, which, if achieved,
would ensure that governments are taking steps to address
modern slavery. The conceptual framework was developedin consultation with an independent Expert Working Groupand is based on findings from NGO research and scholars infields related to modern slavery, such as harmful traditional
practices, health, social welfare, and migration.77 The fullconceptual framework can be found in Table 8.

185

Process
In 2018, data was collected for 181 countries for thegovernment response component of the Index. For the
first time, we have included data on 53 Commonwealthcountries in our government response database.78 As data
for the smaller island nations of the Commonwealth werelimited, we have not provided an overall rating for these
individual countries. Due to ongoing conflict and extreme
disruption to government, we have not included ratings for
Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen this year.79
The five milestones underpinning the conceptual
framework are then broken down into activities, which arefurther disaggregated into indicators. There is a total of 104
indicators in the conceptual framework and 28 activities.
The breakdown by milestone is described in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1
Breakdown of milestones into activities and indicators
Milestone

No. of activities

Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit
and remain out of slavery

9

Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively to prevent
modern slavery

6

Coordination occurs at the national and regional level, andgovernments are held to account for their response

4

Risk factors such as attitudes, social systems, and institutions
that enable modern slavery are addressed

7

Government and business stop sourcing goods and services
produced by forced labour

2

Total:* Taiwan and Kosovo have 27 activities, not 28, as they are unable to ratify international conventions.

28*

No of indicators
31
33
10
19
11
104

186

Global Slavery Index 2018

Data collection
Data are collected at the indicator level, where each indicator describes an element of an activity. Take activity 2.1 undermilestone 1, “A reporting mechanism exists where modern slavery crimes can be reported,” as an example:
TABLE 2
Activity 2.1, Milestone 1
Milestone 1:
Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit and remain out of slavery
Activity: A reporting mechanism
exists where modern slavery crimes
can be reported

Indicators
2.1.1 A reporting mechanism exists
2.1.2 Reporting mechanism is available for men, women, and children
2.1.3 Reporting mechanism is free to access2.1.4 Reporting mechanism operates 24/7
2.1.5 Reporting mechanism operates in multiple languages or has capacity to provide
immediate access to bring in translators

There are five indicators under this activity, each of which
determines the existence of the reporting mechanism andhow well it is operating. Desk research was conducted forthese indicators and others in the conceptual framework
by a team of 37 researchers and research assistants
following a strict protocol that described both the types ofreports and sources to be reviewed and what constitutes“relevant” information. The multilingual team80 conducted
research either by country or by indicator and saved thesereferences in the government response database.81

These data points were then verified, as far as possible,
by NGO contacts within each country. NGOs were given
the opportunity to either respond via email, hold Skypeinterviews, or complete a survey. More than 60 survey
responses were received, and a further 51 NGOs responded
to individual requests for information via email or via Skype.

Regenesys BPO, an outsourcing company
based in the Philippines, provides
computer-based employment to trafficking
survivors to enable the last mile of theirre-integration. Survivors gain skills
to become professionals in data entry,
bookkeeping, accounting, research, postproduction photo and video editing.
Photo credit: Regenesys BPO

Appendices

187

Multinational teamCreation of a database

For the 2018 edition of the Government Response Index,
we used a multinational team of 37 researchers. The
University of Nottingham provided 13 PhD students fromfive countries, who were joined by a team of researchers
and research assistants in Western Australia, the UnitedStates, and the Philippines.

All data collected for our assessment of government
responses since 2014 are available online; a total of nearly
100,000 datapoints. Ratings are available for 2016 and2018. See https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/.

The Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham collaborated
on the 2018 assessment of government responses andon additional data-mapping. A team of 13 Nottingham
researchers from multiple disciplines, directed by Katharine
Bryant (Walk Free Foundation), worked on the assessmentof government responses for 89 countries. The Rights Lab
is led by Zoe Trodd, Kevin Bales and Todd Landman.

188

Global Slavery Index 2018

RatingNinety of the 104 indicators in the conceptual framework arewhat we have called “positive indicators.” Put simply, thesecover the actions the government is taking to achieve eachactivity and milestone. The indicators described in table 2
are all positive indicators.
These indicators are supplemented by 14 standardised“negative indicators,” which attempt to measure
implementation of a particular activity. For example, if
shelters exist for modern slavery victims, the negative
indicator “victims are detained and unable to leave theshelter” would capture whether victims are detained andexperience secondary victimisation despite the existenceof these shelters. The negative indicators also coverbroader factors, which if conducted by governments would
increase the risk of human trafficking and child exploitation.
These include state-sanctioned forced labour, high levelsof government complicity, criminalisation of victims,
deportation of potential victims, and policies that tie migrant
workers to their employers.
All 14 negative indicators can be roughly divided into two
categories; those actions that have a negative impact on
identified victims of modern slavery, and those policies orlaws that enable or facilitate modern slavery to occur.

TABLE 3
Example of negative implementation indicators, Activity 3.1, Milestone 1
Milestone 1:
Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit and remain out of slavery
Activity 3.1: Victim determinedsupport is available for all identified
victims

Indicators:
3.1.1 Victim support services are available for suspected victims of modern slavery (men,women, and children where relevant)
3.1.2 NEGATIVE Suspected victims are held in shelters against their will and do not have a
choice about whether or not to remain in a shelter
3.1.3 Government contributes to the operational costs of the shelters and there are no
significant resource gaps
3.1.4 Physical and mental health services are provided to victims of modern slavery
3.1.5 NEGATIVE Victim support services are not available for all victims of modern slavery
3.1.7 NEGATIVE No victims have accessed the services or shelters

TABLE 414 negative indicators, grouped by type of indicator
Policies or laws that have negative impact on identified victims ofmodern slavery

Policies or laws that facilitate the occurrence of modern slavery

M1 2.2.4 There is evidence that police officers have not identified
victims of modern slavery in the last 12 months

M2 1.2.7 Criminal laws have disproportionate penalties

M1 3.1.2 Suspected victims do not have a choice about whether
or not to remain in a shelter

M2 3.1.3 Specialist police units do not have necessary resources
to be able to operate effectively

M1 3.1.5 Victim support services are not available for all victims ofmodern slavery

M2 3.2.5 Judicial punishments are not proportionate to severityof the crime and complicity of the offender.

M1 3.1.7 No victims have accessed the services or shelters since
1 March 2016

M4 1.4.3 Complicity in modern slavery cases is widespread andnot investigatedM2 1.4.5 There is evidence that victims of modern slavery havebeen treated as criminals for conduct that occurred while undercontrol of criminals

M4 1.6.7 Patterns of abuse of labour migrants are widespread andunchecked

M3 3.2.4 Foreign victims are not identified AND/ OR are detainedand deported

M4 1.6.9 There are laws or policies that prevent or make it difficult
for workers to leave abusive employers without punishment
M4 1.7.5 Diplomatic staff are not investigated or prosecuted foralleged complicity or abuse in modern slavery cases.
M4 1.8.1 State-sanctioned forced labour exists

Appendices

Once data had been collected and verified, each indicator
was scored on a 0 to 1 scale. On this scale, 0 meant no
information was identified or available, or information
explicitly demonstrated that the government did not meet
any indicators; 1 meant that the indicator had been met.
Negative indicators were scored on a 0 to -1 scale. On thisscale, 0 meant no information was identified or available,
or information explicitly demonstrated that the government
did not meet any indicators; -1 meant that the indicator had
been met. As an advocacy tool, we have retained our ratingwhere no information found is rated as 0. However, in thegovernment response database, we have identified thoseindicators for which we have consistently since 2014 failed
to identify any information.
The data and ratings then went through a series of quality
checks – first by country, where each country was reviewed
against the rating descriptions to determine if ratings were

189

sound. Then, following data collection, each indicator was
reviewed across all countries to check for consistency inthe applied logic. Any edits were then reviewed before final
edits were made in the database.
The data were then exported to an Excel spreadsheet andthe final scoring applied. Each activity is weighted equally
so that a country can obtain a total of 28 points. This does
lead to an implicit weighting of milestones, where the more
activities in a milestone, the more weight the milestone isgiven. Table 5 describes the implicit milestone weightings.
Two negative indicators (widespread, un-investigatedofficial complicity in modern slavery cases and stateimposed forced labour) were then subtracted from the total.
The final score was presented as a percentage, which wasthen converted into a rating, based on equal incrementsof 10 (Table 6). Finally, any government that was found tohave any negative indicators was capped at a BBB rating.

TABLE 5
Implicit weighting of each milestone
Milestone

No. of activities

Percentage weight

Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit and remain out of slavery

932%

Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively to prevent modern slavery

6

21%

Coordination occurs at the national and regional level, and governments are held
accountable for their response

4

Risk factors such as attitudes, social systems and institutions that enable modern
slavery are addressed

7

Government and business stop sourcing goods and services that use modern slavery

2

7%

28*

100%**

Total:* Taiwan and Kosovo have 27 activities, not 28, as they are unable to ratify international conventions.
**Percentages add to total of 99% due to rounding

14%
25%

190

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 6
Rating descriptions
RatingNumerical
Range

Description

90 to 100

The government has implemented an effective and comprehensive response to all forms of modern slavery,
with effective emergency and long-term reintegration victim support services, a strong criminal justiceframework, high levels of coordination and collaboration, measures to address all forms of vulnerability, andstrong government procurement policies and legislation to ensure that slavery is not present in businesssupply chains. There is no evidence of criminalisation or deportation of victims.

80 to 89.9

The government has implemented a comprehensive response to most forms of modern slavery, with strong
victim support services, a robust criminal justice framework, demonstrated coordination and collaboration,measures to address vulnerability, and government procurement guidelines and/or supply chain policies orlegislation to ensure that slavery is not present in business supply chains.

70 to 79.9

The government has implemented key components of a holistic response to modern slavery, with strong
victim support services, a strong criminal justice framework, demonstrated coordination and collaboration,measures to address vulnerability, and may have taken action to ensure that government procurement
policies do not encourage slavery and/or supply chain policies or legislation to ensure that slavery is notpresent in business supply chains.

60 to 69.9

The government has implemented key components of a holistic response to some forms of modern slavery,
with victim support services, a strong criminal justice response, evidence of coordination and collaboration,and protections in place for vulnerable populations. Governments may be beginning to address slavery insupply chains of government procurement, or of businesses operating within their territory. There may beevidence that some government policies and practices may criminalise and/or cause victims to be deported.

50 to 59.9

The government has introduced a response to modern slavery that includes short-term victim support
services, a criminal justice framework that criminalises some forms of modern slavery, a body to coordinate
the response, and protection for those vulnerable to modern slavery. There may be evidence that somegovernment policies and practices may criminalise and/or cause victims to be deported and/or facilitateslavery.

40 to 49.9

The government has introduced a response to modern slavery with limited victim support services, a criminal
justice framework that criminalises some forms of modern slavery (or has recently amended inadequate
legislation and policies), a body or mechanisms that coordinate the response, and has policies that provide
some protection for those vulnerable to modern slavery.
There is evidence that some government policies and practices may criminalise and/or deport victims and/or facilitate slavery. Services may be provided by International Organisations (IOs)/NGOs with international
funding, sometimes with government monetary or in-kind support.

30 to 39.9

The government has a limited response to modern slavery, with limited victim support services, a criminal
justice framework that criminalises some forms of modern slavery, and has policies that provide some
protection for those vulnerable to modern slavery. There may be evidence of a National Action
Plan and/or national coordination body. There may be evidence that some government policies and practices
may criminalise and/or deport victims and/or facilitate slavery. Services may be largely provided by IOs/
NGOs with international funding, with limited government funding or in-kind support.

20 to 29.9

The government has a limited response to modern slavery, with largely basic victim support services, alimited criminal justice framework, limited coordination or collaboration mechanism, and few protections for
those vulnerable to modern slavery. There may be evidence that some government policies and practices
facilitate slavery. Services are largely provided by IOs/NGOs with limited government funding or in-kind
support.

C

10 to 19.9

The government response to modern slavery is inadequate, with limited and/or few victim support services,a weak criminal justice framework, weak coordination or collaboration, while little is being done to address
vulnerability. There are government practices and policies that facilitate slavery. Services, where available,
are largely provided by IOs/NGOs with little government funding or in-kind support.

D<0 to 9.9

The government has a wholly inadequate response to modern slavery, and/or there is evidence ofgovernment-sanctioned modern slavery. However, countries in this category may be experiencing highlevels of poverty and internal conflict that may prevent or hinder a response to modern slavery.

AAA

AA

A

BBB

BB

B

CCC

CC

Appendices

191

Limitations

Comparability

Collecting data for 104 indicators across 181 countries is
a complicated undertaking. Access to data is limited forindicators where information is not publicly available or inlanguages spoken by the research team. The absence ofArabic and Portuguese speakers prevented verification with
NGOs in countries where these are the primary languages
spoken. Limits also remain in measuring the implementationof a response; while the negative indicators and NGO
verification are the first steps in measuring this, more remains
to be done in getting at the reality of what is occurring on the
ground as opposed to what is reported publicly.

The government response assessment is comparable toprevious iterations of the Index. However, there are two
caveats on this.
First, following the release of the 2016 Index we conducteda review of all indicators in the conceptual framework.
This was to tighten up the rating descriptions to ensure
consistency in the application of rating logic and toreview the language of certain indicators and their rating
descriptions. This led to various language edits to theindicators, which are available on request. During thisreview we re-examined milestone 5 against the UN
Guiding Principles and the UK Modern Slavery Act, and we
consulted a series of experts in the business and humanrights field. Table 7 shows the 2016 indicators against the
updated 2018 indicators.
Second, we altered our overall scoring to apply moreweight to the two negative indicators on state-imposed
forced labour (M4 1.8.1) and official complicity (M4 1.4.3). This
gives both these indicators the same weight as “activities,”
which is a slightly higher weight than in 2016. This is basedon the premise that if a country is not taking action to tackle
official complicity, or is itself complicit in forced labour, thisundermines the entire government response.

192

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 7
Government response rating by country
Supportsurvivors

Criminaljustice Coordination

RatingCountry

A
BBB*
BBB*
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB

Netherlands

72.2

72.2

75.0

United States

92.6

75.6

56.3

United Kingdom

82.0

73.9

62.5

BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
B
B
B

Addressrisk

Supplychains

TOTAL

92.9

36.7

75.2

66.7

65.0

71.7

73.8

26.7

71.5

Sweden

73.1

64.4

81.3

73.8

18.3

68.7

Belgium

72.2

53.9

87.5

73.8

36.7

68.3

Croatia

77.0

78.3

56.3

69.0

18.3

68.2

Spain

79.3

65.6

62.5

73.8

0.0

66.9

Norway

68.1

82.8

56.3

73.8

10.0

66.8

Portugal

62.6

69.4

68.8

83.3

8.3

66.3

Montenegro

79.3

70.0

56.3

61.9

0.0

64.0

Australia

69.6

75.0

56.3

69.0

0.0

63.8

Cyprus

68.1

77.8

56.3

61.9

18.3

63.4

Macedonia, the former Yugoslav
Republic of

70.4

67.2

75.0

61.9

0.0

63.2

Austria

72.8

61.1

68.8

61.9

18.3

63.1

Georgia

74.1

63.9

56.3

69.0

0.0

62.8

Argentina

70.0

70.6

62.5

78.6

0.0

62.6

Chile

76.5

53.9

50.0

76.2

0.0

62.3
62.0

Italy

58.3

78.9

50.0

83.3

26.7

Serbia

63.9

75.0

56.3

69.0

0.0

61.9

France

42.4

71.7

93.8

71.4

18.3

61.5

Latvia

47.0

61.7

93.8

71.4

18.3

60.9

Switzerland

66.7

60.6

37.5

81.0

0.0

60.0

Albania

72.8

63.3

68.8

66.7

0.0

59.9

Slovenia

60.4

57.8

56.3

73.8

18.3

59.6

Lithuania

46.3

62.8

68.8

78.6

18.3

59.1

Canada

52.4

72.8

75.0

61.9

0.0

58.6

Jamaica

50.6

72.8

75.0

64.3

0.0

58.6

Denmark

62.6

56.1

50.0

69.0

28.3

58.6

Hungary

64.8

47.2

56.3

71.4

18.3

58.2

Dominican Republic

69.1

78.3

37.5

69.0

0.0

58.0

Finland

53.7

49.4

81.3

71.4

8.3

57.9

Ireland

65.9

42.2

62.5

69.0

18.3

57.7

New Zealand

53.7

47.8

43.8

95.2

0.0

57.6

Germany

61.7

57.8

56.3

57.1

36.7

57.1

Bulgaria

59.8

49.4

56.3

66.7

18.3

55.8

Philippines

51.5

69.4

50.0

69.0

0.0

55.8

Moldova, Republic of

58.5

61.1

62.5

59.5

0.0

55.7

Brazil

38.9

47.8

87.5

73.8

26.7

55.6

Greece

68.5

66.1

43.8

45.2

18.3

55.1

Kosovo

66.7

62.7

37.5

59.5

0.0

54.8

Poland

53.3

42.2

68.8

69.0

8.3

53.9

Armenia

54.6

51.1

56.3

66.7

0.0

53.2

Slovakia

48.7

52.2

62.5

64.3

18.3

53.2

Ukraine

65.7

46.1

62.5

66.7

0.0

53.0

Czech Republic

47.0

54.4

81.3

50.0

28.3

52.9

Peru

75.9

42.2

62.5

54.8

0.0

52.5
52.4

Mexico

53.7

62.8

56.3

69.0

0.0

Israel

57.2

56.1

43.8

61.9

0.0

52.1

Indonesia

47.8

60.0

50.0

61.9

0.0

50.8

Uruguay

40.6

49.4

50.0

78.6

0.0

50.4

Costa Rica

53.7

41.7

62.5

59.5

0.0

50.0

Trinidad and Tobago

67.2

50.0

31.3

66.7

0.0

49.9

Thailand

46.3

51.7

56.3

73.8

0.0

48.9

Estonia

41.3

36.1

43.8

81.0

18.3

48.8

Appendices193

Table 7 continued.
Supportsurvivors

Criminaljustice Coordination

Addressrisk

Supplychains

25.0

76.2

0.0

48.6

62.5

59.5

0.0

48.2

RatingCountry

TOTAL

B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC

Bosnia and Herzegovina

60.2

47.8

Azerbaijan

28.0

71.7

Vietnam

62.2

45.0

62.5

66.7

0.0

48.1

United Arab Emirates

63.0

41.1

56.3

42.9

0.0

47.8

South Africa

53.7

61.7

43.8

57.1

0.0

47.4

Turkey

66.7

57.2

37.5

33.3

0.0

47.4

Senegal

49.6

43.9

56.3

54.8

0.0

47.1

Ecuador

61.1

55.6

37.5

52.4

0.0

46.4

Iceland

48.7

54.4

37.5

52.4

8.3

46.4

Nicaragua

34.4

70.0

25.0

66.7

0.0

46.3

Sierra Leone

53.7

37.8

50.0

54.8

0.0

46.2

Nigeria

58.9

53.3

50.0

47.6

0.0

45.8

India

46.3

53.3

56.3

45.2

0.0

45.7

Luxembourg

47.4

33.9

68.8

50.0

8.3

45.4

Guatemala

42.2

25.6

62.5

69.0

0.0

45.2

Bangladesh

43.1

63.3

68.8

42.9

0.0

44.4

Tunisia

53.0

31.7

43.8

57.1

0.0

44.3

Romania

53.3

52.2

50.0

42.9

18.3

43.9

Panama

32.6

60.0

31.3

78.6

0.0

43.9

Cote d'Ivoire

34.4

36.7

43.8

66.7

8.3

42.4

Uganda

48.1

51.7

37.5

54.8

0.0

42.0

Bolivia, Plurinational State of

21.3

43.9

62.5

61.9

8.3

41.3

Colombia

40.4

42.2

62.5

69.0

0.0

41.1

Kyrgyzstan

33.0

48.3

56.3

61.9

0.0

40.9

Paraguay

26.1

56.7

37.5

71.4

10.0

40.9

Mozambique

57.6

49.4

31.3

42.9

0.0

40.7

Belarus

48.9

27.8

37.5

66.7

0.0

40.1

Egypt

37.6

30.6

62.5

64.3

0.0

40.1

Haiti

49.6

42.8

18.8

47.6

0.0

39.7

Barbados

53.3

26.1

37.5

45.2

0.0

39.4

Nepal

35.2

41.7

50.0

59.5

0.0

38.7

Jordan

48.1

42.8

31.3

38.1

0.0

38.6

Malaysia

40.0

53.9

56.3

38.1

0.0

38.4

Lesotho

35.9

37.2

56.3

42.9

0.0

38.3

Taiwan

46.9

38.7

25.0

42.9

8.3

38.2

Benin

30.6

31.7

56.3

52.4

0.0

37.7

Cambodia

40.4

46.7

43.8

33.3

0.0

37.6

El Salvador

31.7

39.4

43.8

64.3

0.0

37.4

Sri Lanka

26.7

42.8

25.0

78.6

0.0

37.4

Honduras

27.6

25.6

62.5

54.8

0.0

37.0

Japan

43.5

44.4

37.5

45.2

0.0

36.6

Morocco

6.5

56.7

31.3

71.4

0.0

36.5

Kenya

35.7

38.9

37.5

59.5

0.0

36.5

Algeria

29.4

47.2

37.5

45.2

0.0

36.3

Ethiopia

27.8

51.1

56.3

47.6

0.0

36.3

Burkina Faso

38.1

30.0

43.8

42.9

0.0

35.7

Qatar

53.0

31.7

31.3

42.9

0.0

35.4

Djibouti

30.4

42.8

31.3

47.6

0.0

35.3

Mauritius

43.7

38.9

0.0

50.0

0.0

34.9

Lao People's Democratic Republic

38.9

36.7

50.0

40.5

0.0

34.0

Gambia

25.0

48.3

37.5

40.5

0.0

33.9

Rwanda

36.9

41.7

43.8

54.8

0.0

33.6

Namibia

34.1

27.8

18.8

54.8

0.0

33.3

Botswana

32.2

45.6

37.5

45.2

0.0

33.2

Tajikistan

38.9

36.1

43.8

40.5

0.0

33.0

194

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 7 continued.
Supportsurvivors

Criminaljustice Coordination

Addressrisk

Supplychains

TOTAL

37.5

26.2

0.0

32.8

31.3

42.9

0.0

32.8

41.7

25.0

47.6

0.0

32.8

55.2

37.2

18.8

31.0

0.0

32.6

Myanmar

58.0

18.3

43.8

42.9

0.0

32.4

Oman

32.4

22.8

12.5

59.5

0.0

32.0

Madagascar

38.7

52.8

18.8

50.0

0.0

31.8

Zambia

33.3

34.4

25.0

40.5

0.0

31.8

Liberia

28.0

26.7

31.3

50.0

0.0

31.7

Guyana

33.1

44.4

25.0

45.2

0.0

31.5

Lebanon

33.9

30.0

31.3

38.1

0.0

31.3

Mali

38.9

35.6

50.0

28.6

0.0

30.8

RatingCountry

CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D

Kazakhstan

42.8

50.0

Singapore

40.0

22.2

Tanzania, United Republic of

37.2

BahrainD

Mongolia

27.8

33.3

31.3

54.8

0.0

30.7

Uzbekistan

30.2

33.9

31.3

64.3

0.0

30.4

Angola

31.5

13.9

43.8

54.8

0.0

29.5

Swaziland

36.3

18.3

37.5

47.6

0.0

29.3

Timor-Leste

33.1

16.7

25.0

42.9

0.0

28.5

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of

23.3

43.9

12.5

52.4

0.0

28.2

Saudi Arabia

32.4

42.8

37.5

26.2

0.0

27.9

Kuwait

28.7

33.9

25.0

45.2

0.0

27.8

Korea, Republic of (South Korea)

35.9

27.8

12.5

33.3

0.0

27.6

Ghana

24.8

33.3

37.5

40.5

8.3

27.6

China

23.5

29.4

43.8

52.4

18.3

27.4

Suriname

24.3

5.6

31.3

54.8

0.0

27.1

Turkmenistan

17.8

40.0

31.3

61.9

0.0

27.1

Malawi

33.1

23.9

43.8

33.3

0.0

26.8

Niger

29.1

35.6

25.0

35.7

0.0

25.9

Cameroon

26.7

24.4

18.8

50.0

0.0

25.4

Gabon

27.8

11.7

31.3

33.3

0.0

24.2

Togo

28.7

21.1

31.3

21.4

0.0

23.6

Cape Verde

23.5

16.1

25.0

33.3

0.0

22.9

Hong Kong

30.2

10.0

12.5

31.0

0.0

21.4

Cuba

13.0

15.0

18.8

42.9

0.0

20.8

Russia

17.0

32.2

37.5

40.5

0.0

20.7

Brunei Darussalam

17.8

19.4

0.0

42.9

0.0

20.6

Guinea

8.7

10.6

37.5

50.0

0.0

19.3

Zimbabwe

11.7

17.2

43.8

35.7

0.0

19.0

Papua New Guinea

26.5

30.6

6.3

26.2

0.0

18.9

Congo, Democratic Republic of the

25.9

24.4

37.5

14.3

0.0

18.9

Guinea-Bissau

7.4

31.1

31.3

21.4

0.0

18.9

Pakistan

21.5

15.6

12.5

40.5

0.0

18.6

Chad

16.7

13.9

12.5

40.5

0.0

16.7

Somalia

8.1

20.6

25.0

35.7

0.0

16.0

Mauritania

6.5

25.0

18.8

35.7

0.0

15.5

Sudan

2.8

26.7

25.0

33.3

0.0

14.9

Congo

8.3

6.7

25.0

42.9

0.0

14.8

Burundi

22.2

11.1

12.5

26.2

0.0

10.7

Equatorial Guinea

3.7

12.2

12.5

26.2

0.0

8.6

Iran, Islamic Republic of

7.4

9.4

0.0

23.8

0.0

6.8

Central African Republic

-3.7

0.6

12.5

21.4

0.0

2.5

Eritrea

0.0

-1.1

0.0

21.4

0.0

-2.0

Libya

0.0

21.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

-2.5

Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)

0.0

-6.7

12.5

4.8

0.0

-5.6

AppendicesSara Zone, Italy. Migrants resting in the boat Open Arms after being rescued. Three hundredand seventy-eight migrants were rescued by the Spanish NGO Proactiva Open Arms as they
travelled from Libya. Since the beginning of the year, nearly 3.000 people have lost their lives
in the Mediterranean Sea. Migrants keep on trying to leave Libya because they say that life in
Libya is really difficult.
Photo credit: Samuel Nacar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

195

196

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 7
Updated Milestone 5
Indicator 2016

Indicator description 2016

Indicator 2018

Indicator description for GSI 2018

M5 1.1.2 Public
procurement policies
and systems exist
to minimise the riskof governmentspurchasing products
tainted by forced
labour.

The government drafts andimplements public procurement
policies that outline standards
for public procurement, which
explicitly prohibit using businesses
suspected of using forced labouror purchasing products that weremade using forced labour.
These policies will ideally have
implementation guidelines
and tools on how to establish
compliance, such as conducting
risk assessments and developing
compliance plans, and a time
period to establish complianceframework.

M5 1.1.1 (edited)
Guidelines exist for public
procurement officials.

The government has drafted guidelines
or an internal memo for public
procurement officials that outline
standards and/or operating proceduresto prevent use of modern slavery in thepurchase of public goods or services.
These guidelines can include general
guidelines on human rights that include
sub-sections on modern slavery.

M5 1.1.2 Public
procurement policies
and systems exist
to minimise the riskof governmentspurchasing products
tainted by forced
labour.

The government drafts andimplements public procurement
policies that outline standards
for public procurement, which
explicitly prohibit using businesses
suspected of using forced labouror purchasing products that weremade using forced labour.
These policies will ideally have
implementation guidelines
and tools on how to establish
compliance, such as conducting
risk assessments and developing
compliance plans, and a time
period to establish complianceframework.

M5 1.1.2 (edited) Public
procurement policies andsystems exist to minimise
the risk of governmentspurchasing products
tainted by forced labour.

The government drafts and implements
public procurement policies that outline
standards for public procurement, which
explicitly prohibit using businesses
suspected of using forced labour, orpurchasing products that were madeusing forced labour. These policies
can include inserting clauses in public
contracts prohibiting the use of forced
labour, not making purchasing decisions
on price alone, steps to be taken
should a contractor be found to use
forced labour, or requiring government
contractors over a certain value tomaintain compliance plans.

M5 1.1.3 Annual
reports on forced
labour in government
supply chains areproduced andpublicly available.

If yes to 1.1.2, the government
releases annual reports on
implementation of the above laws
or policies or releases informationon levels of compliance at allstages of public procurement
and this has to have occurred in
the period from 1 June 2014 to 31
August 2015 or if the policy has
just been adopted, it is enough thatreporting is stipulated as part ofregulating compliance.

M5 1.1.3 (edited) Annual
reports on government
action to prevent use offorced labour in public
procurement are produced
and publicly available.

The government releases reports on
activities taken to prevent use of forced
labour in public procurement
AND
This has to have occurred since 30 June
2012OR If the policy has been adopted
in the last two years (since 1 February2015), it is enough that reportingis stipulated as part of regulatingcompliance. The report can also be on
human rights, but include a sub-section
on modern slavery.

M5 1.1.4 (addition)
The government has
provided training to public
procurement officials on
modern slavery.

The government has provided training toprocurement officials on what is modern
slavery, how it is relevant to their roleand to existing government policies andtheir implementation. This training isprovided face-to-face, or through online
training modules, and has occurred atleast once since
30 June 2012.

M5 1.1.5 (addition) Thereis evidence that the
government has taken
remedial action whereforced labour has been
discovered.

There is evidence that the governmenthas worked with contractors to implement
corrective action plans for those whohave identified issues with the use offorced labour or where the use of forced
labour is prevalent and the contractor isunwilling to work with the government,
there is evidence that the government
has cancelled the contract and this has
occurred since 30 June 2012.

Appendices197

Table 7 continued.

Indicator 2016

Indicator description 2016

Indicator 2018

Indicator description for GSI 2018

M5 1.2.1 Laws orpolicies requirebusinesses to reporton their actions
to implement risk
minimisation policies.

Legislation or policy requires
businesses to report on theiractions to minimise risk of forced
labour in their supply chain.

M5 2.1.1 (edited) Laws
or policies requirebusinesses to report on
their actions to implement
risk minimisation policies.

Legislation or policies require businessto report on their actions to minimise riskof forced labour in their supply chain.
(For example, the UK Modern Slavery
Act requires businesses earning over
£36 million per annum to report on theiractions to combat modern slavery.)M5 2.1.2 (addition)
Governments haveidentified high-risk sectors
and taken action to workwith these sectors toeradicate modern slavery.

The government has collaborated withbusinesses to identify high-risk sectors
and set up national sector-specificinitiatives that support businesses
to tackle modern slavery. These canbe broader initiatives that include
sustainability, health and safety, etc.,
but must include some elements oftackling modern slavery. (One example
is the sustainable textile partnership in
Germany.)

M5 1.2.2 Laws orpolicies requirebusinesses tohave transparent,
risk-minimisation
strategies in placethat will identify andrespond to a caseof modern slavery intheir supply chains.

Legislation or policy requires
businesses to have riskminimisation policies to operate
within the country.
The legislation or policy MUST
have, or be supported by,
guidelines on how to implement it
and penalties for non-compliance.

M5 2.1.3 (edited)
Laws or policies allow
governments to create apublic list of businesses
who have been found totolerate slavery in their
supply chains.

The government has worked withbusinesses and NGOs to create a public
list of businesses that have been foundto tolerate forced labour in their supply
chains and/or these businesses areprevented from accessing public funds.
(For example, the “Dirty List” in Brazil.)

M5 1.2.3 Governments
implement a
responsible
investment reporting
requirement forinvestment funds andbanks headquarteredin their country toensure that investment
does not support
modern slavery.

Investment funds and banks
headquartered the country haveto report on modern slavery risk
in investments and reporting mustoccur at least every two years. If
policy is in place, there must be
evidence that this has occurredsince 1 September 2010 or if thepolicy has just been adopted, it isenough that reporting is stipulated
as part of regulating compliance.

M5 2.1.4 (edited) The
government implementsa responsible investment
reporting requirement
for investment funds andbanks headquarteredin the country to ensurethat investment does notsupport modern slavery.

Investment funds and banks
headquartered the country haveto report on modern slavery risk ininvestments and reporting must occur
at least every two years. If policy is inplace, there must be evidence that thishas occurred since 30 June 2012 or if
the policy has just been adopted, it isenough that reporting is stipulated aspart of regulating compliance.

M2 2.1.5 (addition) Laws orpolicies prevent the importof goods and services
made with forced labour.

The government has prohibited the importof goods and services made with forced
labour. (For example, the US Tariff Act.)

M2 2.1.6 (edited) Laws
are in place that makeit a criminal offence
for company directors
or companies to fail toundertake reasonable
due diligence in first tiersupply chains.

Directors can be charged andprosecuted for slavery in first tier supply
chains where it can be shown that due
diligence has not occurred. This indicatormeasures the existence of this provisionin legislation.

M5 1.2.4 Laws are inplace that make it acriminal offence forcompany directors
or companies to failto prevent modern
slavery from being
utilised in theirbusiness’ first tiersupply chain.

If yes to 1.1.2 or 1.2.1, then:Legislation has strict liability
offences, meaning directors can beheld accountable for slavery in firsttier supply chains where policies
do not exist
ORLegislation has vicarious liability
offences where a company can beheld accountable for slavery in firsttier supply chains where policies
do not exist.

198

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 8
Conceptual framework for measuring government responses
Milestone 1: Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit and remain out of modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2017/8

RATING DESCRIPTION

Increase (andeventual
decrease)in reported
cases ofmodernslavery

1.1 The public
knows what
modernslavery is
and how toreport it

1.1.1 National
campaigns provide
information on
how to report andidentify victims tomembers of thegeneral publicCampaigns on how to identify OR report potential victims, such as promotionof a hotline, website or text messaging details or distributing indicators ofmodern slavery
AND must be distributed to the general public at the NATIONAL level.
NOT training for government officials, NGOs, Embassy staff, health and social
workers AND occurred once since 30 June 2012.
NOT general awareness campaigns which do not mention hotline or indicatorsof trafficking.
NOT Information is distributed to at risk or specific populations or geographic
locations, such as migrant workers or at-risk communities. This is covered
under milestone 4, 1.2.1.

1.1.2 These
campaigns
are distributed
systematically andat regular intervals(as distinct fromone-off, isolated)

If yes to 1.1.1, information has been distributed annually since 30 June 2012
OR information is promoted regularly through social media
AND there is evidence this online promotion has been regularly updated (atleast once since 1 February 2016- please refer to date of Facebook posts, ordate of tweets etc).
If no to 1.1.1, indicator not met.

1.1.3 There has
been an increasein number ofmembers of the
public reportingcases of modern
slavery

If yes to 1.1.1, there has been an increase in public reports of modern slavery
cases in recent years
AND this increase in reports is related to the campaign
OR has occurred since the campaign has been distributed to the generalpublic AND this must have occurred since 30 June 2012.
If no to 1.1.1, indicator not met.

2.1.1 A reporting
mechanism exists,such as a hotline

Reporting mechanism exists where modern slavery crimes can be reported(either in isolation or as part of a larger phone service)
This includes text messaging, an online form or phone hotline
AND This reporting mechanism must be operational between 1 February 2016
and 30 June 2017.
If multiple hotlines exist covering different populations, please rate as
indicator met.

2.1.2 Reporting
mechanism isavailable formen, women andchildrenIf yes to 2.1.1, this reporting mechanism is available for men, women andchildren to report cases of modern slavery
OR there are separate hotlines that cover men, women and children NOT asingle hotline exists where women or children can report, but nowhere formen to report exploitation.
Please refer to the most relevant reporting mechanism identified in 2.1.1 forindicators 2.1.2 through to 2.1.5.
Modern slavery/ trafficking hotline would be most relevant, followed by thosewhich cover sub-populations (e.g. for women and/or children).
If multiple hotlines exist covering all populations, please rate as indicator met.
If some populations are not covered, please rate as indicator not met.

2.1.3 Reporting
mechanism is free
to accessIf yes to 2.1.1, this reporting mechanism is free to access.
If no to 2.1.1, indicator not met.
Please refer to the most relevant reporting mechanism identified in 2.1.1 forindicators 2.1.2 through to 2.1.5.
Modern slavery/ trafficking hotline would be most relevant, followed by thosewhich cover sub trafficking populations (e.g. for women and/or children).
If multiple hotlines exist covering different populations and all are free, please
rate as indicator met. If some of the available and relevant hotlines are not
free, please rate as indicator not met.

2.1 Compre­
hensivereportingmechanisms
operateeffectively

Appendices

199

Table 8 continued.

Milestone 1: Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit and remain out of modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

2.2 Front-line
police knowwhat modern
slavery is
and how
to identify
victims

2.3 First
responders
know what
modernslavery is
and how
to identify
victims

INDICATOR 2017/8

RATING DESCRIPTION

2.1.4 Reporting
mechanism
operates 24/7

If yes to 2.1.1, this reporting mechanism operates 24/7.
If no to 2.1.1, indicator not met.
Please refer to the most relevant reporting mechanism identified in 2.1.1 forindicators 2.1.2 through to 2.1.5.
Modern slavery/ trafficking hotline would be most relevant, followed by thosewhich cover sub trafficking populations (e.g. for women and/or children).
If multiple hotlines exist covering different populations and all are available
24/7, please rate as indicator met. If some hotlines are not available 24/7,
please rate as indicator not met.

2.1.5 The reporting
mechanism
operates in
multiple languages
or has capacity toprovide immediate
access to bring intranslators

If yes to 2.1.1, this reporting mechanism operates in multiple languages, orbrings in translators as necessary.
If no to 2.1.1, indicator not met.
Please refer to the most relevant reporting mechanism identified in 2.1.1 forindicators 2.1.2 through to 2.1.5.
Modern slavery/ trafficking hotline would be most relevant, followed by thosewhich cover sub trafficking populations (e.g. for women and/or children).
If multiple hotlines exist covering different populations and all are available
in multiple languages, please rate as indicator met. If some hotlines are notavailable in multiple languages, please rate as indicator not met.
Multiple languages mean national language + at least one other language.

2.2.1 Training
on basic legal
frameworks andvictim identification
has been carriedout for front-line"general duties"
policeTraining for front-line police has taken place on basic legal frameworks
surrounding modern slavery AND victim identification
AND training for police has occurred once since 30 June 2012.
Definition of training includes formal in person training, as part of broader
curriculum on human rights or other training programs, or part of an online
training program.
Training can be provided by INGOs with government support (support definedas permission, development of the training, or monetary or in kind support).
NOT training manuals have been developed by INGOs, NGOs.
NOT booklets with indicators of trafficking have been handed out to police.
NOT training for immigration, border guards, or labour inspectors.

NEGATIVE 2.2.4
There is evidence
that police officers
have not identified
victims of modern
slavery

If yes to 2.2.1, but police officers have not identified any victims of modern
slavery between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.
If no to 2.2.1, indicator not met.
This indicator is specifically asking if police who have received training haveidentified victims. Mark as "indicator met" where there has been a failure to
identify victims post-training for police. If evidence suggests that victims havenot been identified, but no training has occurred, please mark as "indicator notmet". If the body identifying victims is not specified as "police", government
can be used as a proxy.

2.3.1 Training on
how to identify
victims of modern
slavery is provided
to front-line
regulatory bodies
likely to be "first
responders"Training covers indicators of modern slavery and how to refer individuals
AND training is formal face to face or online modules
AND training is provided to one or more of the following: for border guards,
immigration officials, labour inspectors
AND training has been provided once since 30 June 2012.
Training can be provided by INGOs with government support (support definedas permission, development of the training, or monetary or in kind support).
NOT leaflets have been distributed to labour inspectors or posters have been
put up in airports on how to identify/ report victims.

2.3.2 Training on
how to identify
victims of modern
slavery is provided
to non-regulatory
workers likely to be"first responders"Training covers indicators of modern slavery and how to refer individuals
AND training is formal face to face or online modules
AND training is provided to one or more of the following: for teachers, doctors,
nurses, social workers, tourism sector (including private tourism operators)
AND training has been provided once since 30 June 2012.
Training can be provided by INGOs with government support (support definedas permission, development of the training, or monetary or in kind support).
NOT leaflets have been distributed to tour guides or posters put up in doctors
surgeries on how to identify/ report victims.

200

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 1: Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit and remain out of modern slavery
OUTCOME

Victims areprovidedwith support
to help breakthe cycle ofvulnerability

ACTIVITY

3.1 Victim
determined
emergency
support isavailable forall identified
victims

3.2 Victim
determined
longer-term
support isavailable forall identified
victims

INDICATOR 2017/8

RATING DESCRIPTION

2.3.3 Training forfirst responders
is delivered
systematically andat regular intervals(as distinct fromone-off, isolated)

If yes to 2.3.1 OR 2.3.2, training is delivered at least every two years to atleast one of the above groups (labour inspectors, border guards, immigration,
doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers) since 30 June 2012
AND training has been delivered to a significant proportion of these groups.
OR yes to 2.3.1 AND 2.3.2 and training is delivered at least every two years to
BOTH of these groups.
NOT training has been delivered to each of these groups once since 2012
If no to 2.3.1 AND 2.3.2, then indicator not met.

3.1.1 Victim support
services areavailable for somesuspected victims
of modern slavery(men, women andchildren where
relevant)

Any kind of victim support service is available for men, women, or children
AND services must be government run, or funded by government, or provided
with in-kind support from the government
AND services must be operational between 1 February 2016 and 30 June2017.
NOT INGOs run a shelter without any government support. (Support definedas permission, development of the training, or monetary or in-kind support).

3.1.2 NEGATIVE
Suspected victims
are held in shelters
against their willand do not havea choice about
whether or not toremain in a shelter

If yes to 3.1.1, adult victims are unable to leave a shelter or safe house when
they wish (or are unable to leave without a chaperone). Children must also beable to leave when they wish but should be accompanied with a chaperone.
If evidence that victims (adults and children) are detained against their will or
are unable to leave unaccompanied (adults) or with a chaperone (children),this meets the criteria of the indicator. If no to 3.1.1, not met this indicator.

3.1.3 Government
contributes to theoperational costsof the shelters
and there are no
significant resource
gaps

If yes to 3.1.1, government provides support to the shelters. Support defined asin kind or monetary support (not just permission).
NOT INGO funds and runs a shelter or safe house.
If no to 3.1.1, not met indicator.
If government provides some resources, but there are significant gaps notcovered by INGOs or government, then please rate as indicator not met.

3.1.4 Physical andmental healthservices areprovided to victims
of modern slavery

If yes to 3.1.1, there is evidence of some physical AND mental health support
for victims of modern slavery since 30 June 2012.
If no to 3.1.1., not met indicator.
If government provides some physical and mental health support, but there
are significant gaps not covered by INGOs or government, then please rate as
indicator not met.

3.1.5 NEGATIVE
Victim support
services are notavailable for all
victims of modern
slavery

If yes to 3.1.1 AND there have been identified modern slavery cases of men,
women, children, (or other relevant groups-foreign victims, forced labour
victims, victims of commercial sexual exploitation etc),
AND there are NO specific shelters or services for them.
This has also occurred between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017. NOT
services are not available for a particular group, but no cases within that groupwere identified.
This indicator is measuring gaps in existing services.

3.1.7 NEGATIVE
No victims haveaccessed theservices or shelters

If yes to 3.1.1, despite availability of services, victims have not accessed them
AND this has occurred between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017. Examples
include cases where facilities exist, but victims are not being transferred tothese facilities.
This indicator is measuring the use of existing services.

3.2.1 Services
provide long term
reintegration
supportIf yes to 3.1.1, long term reintegration is defined as evidence of financial
support, provision of housing, job training and/or placement, or receipt ofsocial welfare, or provision of education for victims of modern slavery
AND there is evidence that this has been provided between 1 February 2016
and 30 June 2017.
If no to 3.1.1, indicator not met.
NOT visas are available for victims- this is covered under M1 3.2.2.

Appendices201

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 1: Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit and remain out of modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

3.3 Services
have been
evaluated

Government
coordinates
theidentification
and referralof victims

4.1
Identification
guidelines
are usedby all first
responders

INDICATOR 2017/8

RATING DESCRIPTION

3.2.2 Measures arein place to address
the migration
situation of victims
who want to remain
or be resettled

Visas are available so that foreign victims can receive support either incountry or in a third country after a reflection period has expired.
AND These are available between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.
Note: not dependent on 3.1.1.
These visas include cover longer term visas AND reflection periods) awardedon the basis of personal situation OR participation in court case.

3.2.3 Services arechild friendly

If yes to 3.1.1, children have specialised services, separate shelters, or given
some kind of special support (NOT including support in the criminal justicesystem)AND this has occurred since 30 June 2012.
If no to 3.1.1, indicator not met. NOT children are placed in correctional
facilities, boarding schools or other non-specialised institutions.

3.2.4 Victims are
assisted to makecontact with theirfamily or contact
person of choice

If yes to 3.1.1, victims are assisted to make contact with families by thegovernment
OR there is a family reunification program
AND this is operating between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.
NOT Programs or family reunification program exists but is not currently
funded.
NOT INGOs operate a family reunification program, without government
support.
If no to 3.1.1, not met this indicator.

3.3.1 Training has
been carried out for
all staff providing
direct assistanceservices

If yes to 3.1.1, evidence of any training for those who provide direct victim
support services.
This training includes how to assist victims of modern slavery, and can include
do no harm principles, individualised treatment and care, comprehensive care,self-determination and participation, non-discrimination, confidentiality andright to privacy
OR Direct assistance is provided by fully qualified social workers,
psychologists or doctors
AND This has occurred since 30 June 2012.
Training can be provided by INGOs with government support (support definedas permission, development of the training, or monetary or in kind support).
NOT Training is provided by unskilled volunteers.
If no to 3.1.1, not met this indicator.
NOT General modern slavery training is provided to social workers.
Direct assistance services means those services provided to workers who
have regular contact with victims post-identification. It can include shelter
workers, case managers, doctors and psychologists.

3.3.2 Direct
victim assistanceservices have been
evaluated

If yes to 3.1.1, evidence of formal reporting or evaluation of direct victim
support services has been undertaken
AND this has occurred once since 30 June 2012.
Evaluation (internal or external) is defined as an assessment of the current
services against the service objectives and incorporating client feedback.
NOT a description of the program or services provided NOT ad hoc
inspections without a clear sense of follow up activities.
NOT evaluations of the National Action Plan- this is covered under M3 2.1.1.

3.3.3 Evaluations ofservices have been
provided to the
National Referral
Mechanism orcoordinatingreferral bodyIf yes to 3.3.2, a report of these evaluations has been made to the National
Referral Mechanism or coordinating referral body to inform future assistanceprogramming
AND this has occurred once since 30 June 2012.

4.1.1 The
government has
clear nationalguidelines for
identifying
and screening
victims for all first
responders

National general guidelines exist for identification AND screening of victims
AND have been distributed to all first responders
AND this has occurred since 30 June 2012.
First responders are defined as: immigration, border patrol, labour inspectors,
NGOs, teachers, social workers, doctors, nurses, and the tourism industry.
General guidelines should exist at the national level for all responders, NOT
police have their own guidelines.

202

Global Slavery Index 2018

Milestone 1: Survivors of slavery are identified and supported to exit and remain out of modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

4.2 National
ReferralMechanismis operating
effectively

INDICATOR 2017/8

RATING DESCRIPTION

4.1.2 The guidelines
make provision
for a categoryof "presumed
victims", who
can be provided
with services
until a formal
determination ismade.

If yes to 4.1.1, guidelines include provisions so victims who have not yet beenassessed to be victims of modern slavery can still receive services.
If no to 4.1.1, indicator not met.
Examples include, "presumed" categories within guidelines, or "informal"
assistance given to victims while determination is made.

4.1.3 The
guidelines clearly
set out whichorganisations havethe authority toidentify victims ofmodern slavery

If yes to 4.1.1, guidelines outline which organisations can or cannot formally
identify victims of modern slavery.
If no to 4.1.1, indicator not met.
Examples include a list of approved agencies and NGOs who can identify andcertify victims of modern slavery.

4.2.1 A "National
ReferralMechanism"
brings together
government andcivil society toensure victims arebeing referred toservices

There is a National Referral Mechanism for victims of modern slavery
AND includes government and non- government organisations
AND operating during the period 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017
A National Referral Mechanism is a group of approved NGOs and government
agencies which refers victims to services.
NOT evidence that victims have been referred without a national system
in place.

4.2.2 There isevidence thatvictims arebeing referred toservices using the
National Referral
Mechanism

There is evidence that victims are referred through the National Referral
Mechanism
AND this has happened once between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.

Appendices203

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 2: Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively to prevent modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

Legislation
deterscitizens fromcommitting
crime ofmodernslavery

1.1 Relevantinternational
conventions
are ratified

1.1.1 Slavery
Convention, 1926

Ratification, or succession (d) or accession (a) of 1926 Slavery Convention.
NOT signed the 1926 Slavery Convention, WITHOUT accession, succession or
ratification.

1.1.2 Supplementary
Convention on
the Abolitionof Slavery, theSlave Trade, andInstitutions andPractices Similar to
Slavery, 1956

Ratification, succession (d) or accession (a) of the 1956 Supplementary
Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions andPractices Similar to Slavery.
NOT signed the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, theSlave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery 1956, WITHOUT
accession, ratification, or succession.

1.1.3 Protocol
to Prevent,
Suppress andPunish Trafficking
in Persons,
Especially Womenand Children,
supplementing
the United Nations
Convention against
Transnational
Organized Crime,
2000

Ratification, Acceptance (A), Accession (a), or Succession (d) of the Protocol toPrevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women andChildren, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime, 2000.
NOT signed the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in
Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations
Convention against Transnational Organized Crime 2000, WITHOUT
Ratification, Acceptance (A), accession (a), or Succession (d).

1.1.4 Abolition ofForced Labour
Convention ILO,
No. 105, 1957

Status must be "In Force" for the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, No.
105, 1957
AND "In Force" as of 30 June 2017.
NOT "In force" for the Forced Labour Convention (1930).

1.1.5 Domestic
Workers
Convention ILO No.
189, 2011

Status must be "In Force" for the Domestic Workers Convention, No, 189
AND "In Force" as of 30 June 2017.

1.1.6 Worst Formsof Child Labour ILO
182, 1999

Status must be "In Force" for the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention,
1999 (ILO 182)
AND "In Force" as of 30 June 2017.

1.1.7 Optional
Protocol to theConvention on the
Rights of the Childon the involvementof children inarmed conflict,
2000

Ratification, succession (d) or accession (a) of the CRC Optional Protocol to theConvention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed
Conflict, 2000.
NOT signed the CRC Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict 2000, WITHOUT
accession, ratification, or succession.

1.1.8 Optional
Protocol to theConvention on
the Rights of theChild on the Saleof Children, Child
Prostitution andChild Pornography,
2000

Ratification, succession (d) or accession (a) of the CRC Optional Protocol to theConvention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution
and Child Pornography 2000.
NOT signed the CRC Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of theChild on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography 2000,
WITHOUT accession, ratification, or succession.

1.1.9 International
Convention on
the Protection of
the Rights of All
Migrant Workers
and Members of
their Families, 1990

Ratification, succession (d) or accession (a) of the International Convention
on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their
Families 1990.
NOT signed or signed to succeed the International Convention on theProtection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
1990, WITHOUT accession, ratification, or succession.

204

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 2: Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively to prevent modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

1.2 Domestic
legislation isin line withinternational
conventions

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

1.1.10 Protocol of2014 to the Forced
Labour Convention,
P029, 1930

Status must be "In Force" for the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour
Convention, P029, 1930 AND "In Force" as of 30 June 2017

1.2.1 Human
trafficking is
criminalised

Human Trafficking is listed as a standalone article in the Penal Code or Criminal
Code
OR Human Trafficking is criminalised under a distinct piece of legislation
AND Within either the penal code or distinct legislation human trafficking does
not require movement of individuals across international borders
AND The legislation covers men, women and children.
Movement may include cross-border/transnational movement, or internal
movement such as movement from a rural to urban location.
Definition of trafficking includes action, means, and purpose.
Trafficking in persons shall require action (e.g. recruitment, transportation,transfer, or harbouring), means (e.g. by means of the threat or use of force orother forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud), and purpose (eg. exploitation).

1.2.2 Slavery is
criminalised

Slavery is criminalised as a distinct crime.
The offence of slavery must include a situation in which the status or conditionof a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right ofownership are exercised. Slavery may be listed as a standalone crime in the
Penal or Criminal Code or in trafficking specific legislation or in another act
NOT Slavery is prohibited in the Constitution.

1.2.3 Forced labouris criminalised

Forced labour is criminalised as a distinct crime.
Forced or compulsory labour means all work or service which is exacted fromany person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has
not offered himself voluntarily. Does not include compulsory military service,
work which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizen, or work
performed in cases of emergency (such as war, fire, famine or flood).
The offence of forced labour must include(1) work performed under the menace of any penalty;(2) work for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.
These two components must be present in order for the indicator to have been met.
Forced labour may be listed as a standalone crime in the Penal or Criminal
Code or in trafficking specific legislation or in another act.

1.2.4 Use ofchildren inarmed conflict iscriminalised

Criminal code or standalone legislation specifically criminalises use of children
in armed conflict.
NOT where the age of recruitment is 18, but there is no criminalisation of theuse of children in armed forces.
Must cover use of children in state (national army) and armed groups (non-statearmed groups).

1.2.5 Child
prostitution iscriminalised

The penal or criminal code or trafficking legislation includes provisions that it is
an offence:
AND to buy sexual acts with a child.
NOT met when selling a child is criminalised AND child sex abuse iscriminalised (second component must criminalise purchase of sex with a child).
to sell/force a child into prostitution.

Appendices205

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 2: Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively to prevent modern slavery
OUTCOME

Victims areable to accessjustice

ACTIVITY

1.4 Nationallaws
recognisethat victims
are able toparticipate incourt process
to receive
justice

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

1.2.6 Forced
marriage iscriminalised

Forced marriage is criminalised as a distinct crime, in the penal or criminal
code, trafficking legislation or other act
NOT The legal age of marriage is set at 18.
If kidnapping is required to be present for the crime of forced marriage tooccur, this is indicator not met.

1.2.7 NEGATIVE
Criminal laws havedisproportionate
penalties

Penalties as laid out in legislation are cruel or inhumane
OR are not sufficient enough to deter future offenders.
This does NOT refer to judicial sentences, rather the punishments outlined inlegislation.
Cruel and inhumane punishments include torture, deliberately degrading
punishment, or punishment that is too severe- capital punishment, whipping, orother forms of physical violence. Insufficient punishments would include fines
for modern slavery related crimes.

1.4.1 National laws
allow victims toparticipate in thelegal system,
regardless of theirrole as a witness

National laws allow victims to participate in the legal system regardless of theirrole as a witness.
This includes: allowing victims to give evidence (without being called as awitness),
OR providing information on the court processes in languages victims
understand,
OR allowing victims to inspect and add documents to the file,
OR and the admission of victim impact statements.
NOT there is evidence or a general statement that victims participate in thecriminal justice process as witnesses.
Relevant national laws include Criminal Procedure Code, or Criminal law(sentencing) Acts.

1.4.2 Law
recognizes thatvictims should
not be treatedas criminals for
conduct that
occurred while
under control ofcriminals

National laws recognise victims are not a criminal for conduct during
enslavement
AND This must refer to modern slavery crimes, not general provisions inlegislation.
Modern slavery crimes are defined as human trafficking, forced labour, slavery,
forced marriage, and children in armed conflict.
NOT there is no evidence that victims have been criminalised.

1.4.3 Visas to stayin the country are
not dependent on
victim participationin the court process

Visas to remain are not tied to participation in the court process. For example,
visas are awarded to trafficking victims on the basis of humanitarian or personalreasons, not because they"ve agreed to participate in the court process.

1.4.5 NEGATIVE
There is evidence
that victims ofmodern slavery
have been treatedas criminals for
conduct that
occurred while
under control ofcriminals

Victims have been arrested for crimes committed while under the control of theperson exploiting them
AND This has occurred between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.
NOT Foreign nationals have been deported OR detained for immigration
offences (no visa, overstaying visa etc). This is covered under milestone 3, 3.2.2.
Examples would be victims have been arrested on prostitution charges orarrested for drug production. If victims are arrested and released as soon as itis realised that they are victims, please rate as indicator not met.

206

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 2: Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively to prevent modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

2.1 Services
exist to allow
victims toaccess justice2.1.1 Free legal
services for victims
of modern slavery
are made explicit inlegislation

Any kind of free legal services or advice exists in legislation, including freelegal advice, and free legal representation
AND these are either specific to victims of modern slavery
OR victims of modern slavery can access broader legal advice, which isavailable for all victims of crime.
NOT Legal services are available, but not free.
NOT Free legal services are only available for citizens, not foreign victims.
NOT Free legal services are available for certain types of crime (such as violent
crime) and modern slavery is not specified.
NOT Free legal services are offered by NGOs, but not made explicit inlegislation.
If free legal services exist in legislation AND there is no evidence they are notbeing used, please rate as indicator met.
If free legal services exist in practice, but there is no evidence of their
existence in legislation, please rate as indicator met.
If free legal services are NOT in legislation and no evidence of these being
used, please rate as indicator not met.
If free legal services exist in legislation and there is evidence they are not usedor are poorly implemented, please rate as indicator not met.

2.1.3 Witness andvictim protection
mechanisms
are explicit inlegislation toensure thatneither witnesses
nor victims are
intimidated, norinterfered with
INSIDE the court

Government operated or supported witness and victim protection mechanisms
exist in legislation so that victims are not intimidated or interfered with INSIDE
the court.
Government operated or supported is defined as government run, or fundedby government, or provided with in-kind support from the government.
NOT applicable outside the courtroom, see M2, indicator 2.1.4.
Victim protection mechanisms inside the courtroom refers to provision of video
testimony, victims are not cross- examined, and victims are protected fromperpetrators.
If witness protection mechanisms exist in legislation AND there is no evidence
they are not being used, please rate as indicator met.
If witness protection mechanisms exist in practice, but there is no evidence of
their existence in legislation, please rate as indicator met.
If witness protection mechanisms are NOT in legislation and no evidence of
these being used, please rate as indicator not met.
If witness protection mechanisms exist in legislation and there is evidence they
are not used or are poorly implemented, please rate as indicator not met.

Appendices207

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 2: Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively to prevent modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

2.1.4 Witness andvictim protection
mechanisms
are explicit inlegislation toensure thatneither witnesses
nor victims are
intimidated, norinterfered withOUTSIDE the court

Government operated or supported witness and victim protection mechanisms
exist in legislation so that victims are not intimidated or interfered withOUTSIDE the court.
Government operated or supported is defined as government run, or fundedby government, or provided with in-kind support from the government.
NOT applicable inside the courtroom, see milestone 2, indicator 2.1.3.
Witness and victim protection mechanisms include an official witness
protection program where individuals are provided with security, newidentities, and relocation support, or protection where the victim"s identity is
not revealed to the public.
If witness protection mechanisms exist in legislation AND there is no evidence
they are not being used, please rate as indicator met.
If witness protection mechanisms exist in practice, but there is no evidence of
their existence in legislation, please rate as indicator met.
If witness protection mechanisms are NOT in legislation and no evidence of
these being used, please rate as indicator not met.
If witness protection mechanisms exist in legislation and there is evidence they
are not used or are poorly implemented, please rate as indicator not met.

2.1.5 The legal
framework
supports restitution
or compensationfor victims ofmodern slavery

The legal framework allows victims of modern slavery to receive compensation
for damages incurred as a result of exploitation
OR the legal framework allows victims of modern slavery to receive restitution
for damages incurred as a result of exploitation.
Compensation is when a court orders the defendant (perpetrator) to pay theclaimant (victim) for his/her loss.
Restitution is when a court orders the defendant (perpetrator) to give up his/her gains to the claimant (victim).
When the compensation and/ or restitution is available only for victims ofviolent crimes, please mark as indicator not met- this may exclude some victims
of modern slavery who are not subject to violent crimes.
If compensation and/ or restitution exists in legislation AND there is noevidence they are not being used, please rate as indicator met.
If compensation and/or restitution exists in practice, but there is no evidence of
their existence in legislation, please rate as indicator met.
If compensation and/or restitutios is NOT in legislation and no evidence of
these being used, please rate as indicator not met.
If compensation and/or restitution exists in legislation and there is evidence
they are not used or are poorly implemented, please rate as indicator not met.

208

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 2: Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively to prevent modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

3.1
Specialised
police units
are able toinvestigate
modernslavery
crimes3.2 Increased
numberof quality
prosecutions

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

2.1.6 Child friendly
services areprovided for inlegislation

Legislation specifies that children require special services during the court
case.
NOT there is any evidence of child friendly services being used in court.
Child friendly services include the use of screens or video testimonies, trainingof judges in child friendly questioning, and the use of one support person or
guardian during the court process.
If child friendly services exist in legislation AND there is no evidence they are
not being used, please rate as indicator met.
If child friendly services exist in practice, but there is no evidence of their
existence in legislation, please rate as indicator met.
If child friendly services are NOT in legislation and no evidence of these being
used, please rate as indicator not met.
If child friendly services exist in legislation and there is evidence they are notused or are poorly implemented, please rate as indicator not met.

3.1.1 Specialised
law enforcement
units exist

Has to be a specialised law enforcement unit or a sub-unit or team within
the law enforcement structure that has specialised mandate to conduct
investigations into modern slavery,
OR provide specialist support for colleagues
AND this unit is operating since 30 June 2012.
NOT Local level anti trafficking coordination bodies.

3.1.3 NEGATIVE
Units do nothave necessary
resources to beable to operate
effectively

If yes to 3.1.1, these units, sub-units, or teams do not have sufficient budget, or
operational equipment, or are understaffed. This has an impact on their ability
to function. This lack of resources must have occurred between 1 February
2016 and 30 June 2017.

3.1.4 Units haveStandard Operating
Procedures formodern slavery
cases

If yes to 3.1.1, the unit or team has standard operating procedures for modern
slavery cases
AND must be specific to specialist units.
NOT SOPs/ guidelines have been produced by an INGO in the last 5 years(since 30 June 2012) with no evidence of use by specialist unit.
SOPs include, for example: clear standardised procedures for use acrossthe unit, including how to liaise with front line officers, on how to conduct
risk assessments, interview techniques (covering witnesses, child victims
and use of interpreters), definitions and indicators of modern slavery, victim
centred approaches (understanding of psychological stress and its impact on
investigations), case referrals etc.
SOPs are NOT an internal memo recommending that police focus on modern
slavery cases.
SOPs are NOT a booklet handed out to police with indicators of modern slavery.

3.2.1 Training isprovided to the
judiciary

Training for the judiciary has taken place on human trafficking and related
legislation, victim needs in the courtroom, basic international legal
standards in modern slavery cases, trends in modern slavery in the country,
and victim profiles
AND training for judiciary has occurred once since 30 June 2012.
Definition of training includes formal in person training, as part of broader
curriculum on human rights or other training programs, or part of an online
training program.
Training can be provided by INGOs with government support (support definedas permission, development of the training, or monetary or in kind support).
NOT training manuals have been developed by INGOs, NGOs.
NOT booklets with description of modern slavery laws have been handed out
to judiciary.

Appendices209

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 2: Criminal justice mechanisms function effectively to prevent modern slavery
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

3.2.2 Training
is provided toprosecutors

Training for prosecutors has taken place on human trafficking and related
legislation, victim needs in the courtroom, basic international legal standards
in modern slavery cases, trends in modern slavery in the country, and victim
profilesAND training for prosecutors has occurred once since 30 June 2012.
Definition of training includes formal in person training, as part of broader
curriculum on human rights or other training programs, or part of an online
training program.
Training can be provided by INGOs with government support (support definedas permission, development of the training, or monetary or in kind support).
NOT training manuals have been developed by INGOs, NGOs.
NOT booklets with description of modern slavery laws have been handed out
to prosecutors.

3.2.4 Training issystematic andrecurrent (asdistinct from oneoff, isolated)

If yes to 3.2.1, 3.2.2, OR 3.2.2, training is has occurred at least once to at least
one of the above groups (judiciary or prosecutors) since 30 June 2012
AND training has been delivered to a significant proportion of these groups
OR yes to 3.2.1, 3.2.2, OR 3.2.3 and training has been delivered at least once to
BOTH groups (judges, prosecutors) since 30 June 2012.
NOT training has been delivered to each of these groups once since 2012.
If no to 3.2.1, AND 3.2.2, then indicator not met.

3.2.5 NEGATIVE
Judicial
punishments are
NOT proportionate
to severity of
the crime andculpability of theoffender.

Judicial punishments are either too lenient or too harsh for offenders
AND this has occurred during the period 1 February 2016 to 30 June 2017.
Examples of too lenient include giving of fines, suspended sentences, andsentences are less than the prescribed minimum. Examples of too harsh arecorporal punishment and capital punishment.

210

Global Slavery Index 2018

Milestone 3: Coordination occurs at the national and regional level, and governments are held to account for their response
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATORS 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

Responses
to modernslavery arecoordinated

1.1 National
mechanisms
exist tocoordinate theresponse

1.1.1 National
coordination body
exists involving
both government
and NGOs

National coordination body on modern slavery (trafficking, slavery, forced
labour, children in armed conflict) exists that includes both NGOs andgovernment representatives
AND this group met at least once between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.
This body coordinates the whole of the government response to modern
slavery.
NOT a National Action Plan.
NOT a group or body that refers victims. This is covered under Milestone 1,
4.2.1.

1.2.1 National Action
Plan exists withclear indicators
and allocation of
responsibilities

Any National Action Plan (NAP) on modern slavery, or that covers any
component of modern slavery, such as trafficking, forced marriage, forced
marriage, children in armed conflict
AND this NAP covers part or all of the period 1 February 2016 to 30 June 2017.
NOT Child labour NAPs, or broader human rights NAPs, women empowerment
NAPs, unless they include a specific modern slavery section.
NOT Regional action plans, such as the Regional Action Plan to End Child
Marriage in South Asia (developed with SAARC countries).

1.3.2 Government
routinely uses the
National Action Plan
as a framework forreporting its actions

If yes to 1.2.1, the government releases annual reports against the National
Action Plan, including process reviews of major anti-slavery initiatives,budgets/expenditure and implementation plans for the following year/s.
If no to 1.2.1, then this indicator cannot be met.

1.3.5 Activities in the
National Action Plan
are fully funded

If yes to 1.2.1, there is evidence that there is a budget attached to the NAP andthis is fully funded.
Still indicator met if the NAP is part funded by government and part funded by
IOs or NGOs, but that all activities are funded.
NOT The activities are costed, but it is unclear where this money is comingfrom OR there are reports of significant gaps in funding which is not plugged
by IOs, NGOs or other agencies.
If no to 1.2.1, then this indicator cannot be met.

2.1.1 Independent
entity to monitor
the implementationand effectiveness of
National Action Plan
existsAn independent entity is established to monitor the activities of thegovernment in relation to their anti- modern slavery efforts.
This body can be outside the NAP and does not have to only focus solely on
modern slavery.
Independent entity can be an independent statutory body or individual orother third party, that DOES NOT implement the government response tomodern slavery. Examples would include a Human Rights Commission or
National Rapporteur.
NOT regional entities that inspect government responses, such as GRETA
in Europe

2.1
Independent
mechanisms
exist tomonitor the
response

Appendices

211

Milestone 3: Coordination occurs at the national and regional level, and governments are held to account for their response
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATORS 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

3.1 Generalcross bordercollaboration
exists

3.1.1 The
government isinvolved in aregional response

The government is part of a regional response.
A relevant regional body includes:
A body with more than two country representatives as members of the group;AND
A focus on some form of modern slavery.
The government must have signed onto, or have agreed to abide by the sharedvalues, and objectives developed by the group (i.e. a code of conduct, an MoU on
proposed outcomes etc.)

3.1.3 Agreements
exist between thegovernment andcountries of origin
and/ or destination
to collaborate on
modern slavery
issuesAgreements exist between governments of countries of origin and/ or
destination on modern slavery issues to collaborate on modern slavery issues
NOT labour migration agreements- covered under M3 3.2.6 NOT evidence ofrepatriation- covered under M3 3.2.1.

3.2.1 The
government
cooperates withthe governmentof the homecountry to facilitate
repatriation

The government cooperates with home country for voluntary repatriationof foreign nationals.
This could include repatriation mediated by IOM (MUST have evidence
that police or government authorities refer victims to IOM).
AND This has occurred since 30 June 2012
NOT Evidence of deportation.
Repatriation refers to the voluntary return of individuals to their home country
with their consent.
Deportation refers to the removal of an individual from a country without
their consent.

NEGATIVE 3.2.4
Foreign victims
are detained
and/ or deported
for immigration
violations

Foreign victims are detained in detention facilities or deported for immigration
violations. Can include instances where victims are detained for a breach ofvisa conditions OR instances foreign victims are deported to countries of origin
without access to assistance.
This occurred between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.
Note: if victims are arrested for crimes committed while enslaved, please refer
to Milestone 2, 1.4.2.

3.2.6 Agreements
exist between
countries on labour
migration, which
provide protection
for labour migrants

These agreements provide protection for labour migrants, NOT agreements
regarding number of labour migrants sent/ received. For countries that are partof the EU, membership is not sufficient to offer protection. Instead, please see
national legislation has been harmonised with EU requirements under EU lawSee GRETA reports.

3.2 Crossbordercollaboration
exists, specificto foreign
victims ofmodernslavery212

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 4: Risk factors, such as attitudes, social systems and institutions, that enable modern slavery are addressed
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

Government
programmingreflects andresponds
to known
risk factors
and driversof modernslavery andpatterns of
exploitation

1.1. Risk
factors,
drivers, andpatterns of
exploitationareunderstoodand informgovernment
action1.1.1 Government
facilitates or funds
non- prevalence
research on modern
slavery

Government funds or has been actively involved in research on any type ofmodern slavery, including responses to modern slavery, and the attitudes,social systems and institutions that place people at risk of modern slavery
AND this has occurred at least once since 30 June 2012.
Active involvement is defined as development of the research, participation in
the research, or monetary or in kind support.
Modern slavery includes trafficking, forced labour, slavery, worst forms of childlabour, forced marriage and use of child soldiers.
NOT civil society conducts research without government involvement.
NOT government conducts research on child labour.
NOT government conducts prevalence research.

1.1.2 Government
facilitates orfunds researchprevalence or
estimation studies
of modern slavery

The government funds or has been actively involved in prevalence or
estimation studies of modern slavery.
AND this has occurred at least once since 30 June 2012.
Active involvement is defined as development of the research, participation in
the research, or monetary or in kind support.
Modern slavery includes trafficking, forced labour, slavery, worst forms of childlabour, forced marriage and use of child soldiers.
The research must provide estimations of the number of people in modern
slavery.
NOT civil society conducts research without government involvement.

1.1.3 Government
interventions that
aim to address
modern slavery areevidence-based.

There is evidence that government interventions or programs are based on
strategies or theories of change identified by research
AND this has occurred since 30 June 2012.
Evidence can include a broader government strategy which incorporates
modern slavery research, the National Action Plan incorporates modern
slavery research or that the National Action Plan or strategy is reviewed in linewith recent modern slavery research.

1.2.1 Awarenesscampaigns target
specific known risks
of modern slavery

Any awareness campaign implemented by the government, which provides
detailed information on how to avoid the risks of modern slavery
AND has run at least once since 30 June 2012.
Campaign can be implemented by the government with a partner NGO
OR funded by the government and implemented by an NGO.
These campaigns can include domestic violence, forced marriage, child marriage,
the worst forms of child labour, child soldiers, and risky migration practices.
NOT an awareness raising counter trafficking campaign run by aninternational organisation.
NOT Promotion of the hotline- this is covered under milestone 1, 1.1.1.

1.2
Government
interventions
are tailored torisksAppendices213

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 4: Risk factors, such as attitudes, social systems and institutions, that enable modern slavery are addressed
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

Vulnerable
populations
do notbecomeenslaved

1.3 Safety
nets exist forvulnerable
populations

1.3.2 The
government
conducts labour
inspections in theinformal sector to
identify cases ofmodern slavery

The government funds labour inspections which are conducted with specificintent of finding modern slavery victims in the informal sector.
Government funding is defined as monetary or in-kind support.
Informal sector includes workers in un-regulated industries. i.e. sex work, brickkilns, agriculture, fishing, and domestic work.
AND these inspections have occurred since 30 June 2012.
NOT private companies or corporates conduct their own inspections.
NOT labour inspectors are trained on modern slavery. This is covered under M1
2.3.1.

1.3.3 Affordable
health carefor vulnerable
populations exists

Affordable health care includes the presence of state health care schemes,
community health schemes, or financial assistance focused on providing
access to health care for vulnerable groups.
Health care is available for all and does not discriminate based on gender,
ethnicity, religious background or geographic region.
NOT Health care is available for victims of modern slavery- this is covered
under M1 3.1.4.
For example, health care is too costly, thereby excluding certain groups or
health care is too centralised, thereby excluding certain geographical regions,please rate as indicator not met.

1.3.4 Public primaryeducation isavailable for all
children regardlessof ethno-culturalor religious
background

Public primary education system exists.
Education is available for all children and does not discriminate based on
gender, ethnicity, religious background or geographic region.
For example, primary education is too costly, thereby excluding attendance by
certain groups of children, or education is not available to Roma groups, please
rate as indicator not met.

1.4 Official
complicity isillegal1.4.1 Nationallaws criminalise
corruption in the
public sector

Public corruption is criminalised in legalisation.
Public sector includes government officials, including police, immigration, andborder guards. Corruption includes, at a minimum, bribery of officials. Pleaserefer to legislation, not to instances of combatting corruption.

1.4 NEGATIVE
Official
complicity
is notinvestigated

1.4.3 NEGATIVE
Reports of individual
officials" complicity
in modern slavery
cases have notbeen investigated

Any reports of individual officials" complicity or corruption in modern slavery
cases between 1 February 2016 to 30 June 2017.
Individual officials include: government officials, police, immigration officials,
border guards, and labour inspectors.
Excludes consular staff (covered by milestone 4, indicator 1.7.5)
MUST be related to modern slavery crimes (trafficking, forced labour, slavery,
forced marriage, use of child soldiers, and worst forms of child labour).
NOT Evidence of general corruption of law enforcement.
Must refer to more than one report of complicity within the reporting period
AND no steps have been taken to investigate these reports.82

214

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 4: Risk factors, such as attitudes, social systems and institutions, that enable modern slavery are addressed
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

1.5 Social
protections
exist

1.5.1 Birthregistration systems
exist

The government funds or supports birth registration systems that covers theentire population.
Can include systems which are implemented or funded by INGOs, but withgovernment support.
Government support is defined as development of the birth registration
system, participation in the system, or monetary or in kind support.
Covering the entire population refers to the percent of people who are
registered. Award indicator not met if less than 95 percent of the populationis registered OR specific groups are missing. See UNICEF statistics andsupplement with additional research on missing vulnerable populations.
Vulnerable populations can include ethnic, cultural or religious groups who do
not have equal access to birth registration. E.g. Roma populations.

1.5.2 Systems arein place to allow
asylum seekers toseek protection

There are policies and procedures in place so that asylum seekers are able toaccess basic support and protection within a country"s borders
Services may be provided by IOs/NGOs with government support
Government support is defined as development of the asylum seeker system,
participation in the system, or monetary or in kind support.
NOT
Asylum seekers are detained without access to services
NOT
Asylum seekers are deported without their claims being assessed
NOT
Asylum seekers claims are assessed outside of the country where they
sought asylum.

1.6.3 Laws orpolicies state thatprivate recruitment
fees are paid by theemployer, not theemployee

Government legislation or policies state that recruitment fees payable torecruitment agencies are not charged to the employee (i.e. are paid by theemployer, not employee). Please check Labour Code or Employment Act forthis information.

1.6.5 Labour laws
extend to everyone,
including migrant
workers, domestic
workers and thosein the fishingand construction
sectors.

The legal definition of an employee includes all vulnerable workers, such as
domestic workers, migrant workers, construction workers, maritime workers, etc.
If the jurisdiction does not have a generic definition of an employee, or a labour
code, the information can come from NGOs, related legislation or reports.
NOT Domestic workers are not explicitly mentioned in legislation.
NOT Labour protections do not cover fishermen in territorial waters.
This indicator does not extend to army, judiciary and civil service- if these are
NOT included, and all other groups are included, this is still indicator met.

1.6.7 NEGATIVE
Patterns of abuseof labour migrants
are institutionalised,or systematic andunchecked

Abuse of migrant workers is institutionalised, or systematic and not addressed.
Institutionalised means that these practices are part of government policy, orthat these patterns of abuse are systematic, and the government is taking little
if any action to address this.
Patterns of abuse includes multiple instances of the following: high recruitment
fees, or high interest rates on fees, makes it impossible to pay these fees back,or withheld passports is a common occurrence by the majority of employers, ormost workers have restrictions placed on their movement by their employers
AND this occurred between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.
NOT instances of these abuses are reported, but the government is taking
action against these.

1.6.9 NEGATIVE
There are laws
or policies thatprevent or make it
difficult for workers
to leave abusive
employers without
risk of loss of visa
and deportation

Any current specific government policy or law that leads to loss of visa ordeportation of migrant workers (or specific groups of migrant workers, such as
domestic workers) for leaving abusive employers.
AND current defined as operating between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.
NOT there is evidence of victims being deported for breach of visa conditions,but this does not occur as a direct result of government policy. This is covered
under milestone 3, indicator 3.2.4.

1.6 Safety
nets exist
for migrant
workers

Appendices215

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 4: Risk factors, such as attitudes, social systems and institutions, that enable modern slavery are addressed
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

1.7
Government
providessupportfor citizens
overseas1.7.1 Government
provides training for
its consular staff on
modern slavery

Governments provide training for its embassy or consular staff before
departure for a posting or during a posting.
AND This has occurred once since 1 February 2012.
Definition of training includes formal in person training, as part of broader
curriculum on human rights or other training programs, or part of an online
training program.
Training can be provided by INGOs with government support (support definedas permission, development of the training, or monetary or in kind support).
NOT training manuals have been developed by INGOs, NGOs.
NOT booklets with indicators of trafficking have been handed out toEmbassy staff.

1.7.2 Government
providesidentification
documents andsupport travel
arrangements for
citizen return

Any citizen found to be exploited overseas can obtain documents from theirown country or be facilitated with travel back to their country by their own
government. These documents are normally given by a citizen"s Embassies orConsulates
AND this has occurred at least once since 30 June 2012.
This information can be found in modern slavery legislation, or on Ministry/
Department of Foreign Affairs websites.

1.7.5 NEGATIVE
Diplomatic staff are
not investigated foralleged complicity
in modern slavery
cases or abuse of
victims

Diplomatic/Embassy staff are complicit in the exploitation of nationals or abuse
those who seek assistance at the Embassy and no investigations have takenplace
AND this has occurred between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2017.

1.8.1 NEGATIVEState sanctioned
forced labour exists

Any form of state sanctioned labour, where the government forced the whole,or segments of the population, to work under threat of penalty, and for which
work, the person or population has not offered himself voluntarily. Excludes
compulsory military services, work which forms part of normal civil obligationsof the citizen, or work performed in cases of emergency (such as war, fire,
famine or flood).83

1.8 NEGATIVE
Government
places its
population,or part of its
population inforced labour

216

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 5: Government and business stop sourcing goods and services produced by forced labour
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

Government
sources
goods andservices
which areslavery
free andencourages
businesses topractice due
diligence

1.1
Government
regulates andinvestigatespublicprocurement
to prevent
use of forced
labour

1.1.1 Guidelines
exist for public
procurement
officials

The government has drafted guidelines or an internal memo for public
procurement officials that outline standards and/ or operating procedures toprevent use of modern slavery in the purchase of public goods or services.
These guidelines can include general guidelines on human rights, which
include sub sections on modern slavery.

1.1.2 Public
procurement
policies andsystems exist to
minimise the riskof governmentspurchasing
products tainted byforced labour

The Government drafts and implements public procurement policies thatoutline standards for public procurement, which explicitly prohibit usingbusinesses suspected of using forced labour or purchasing products that weremade using forced labour.
These policies can include inserting clauses in public contracts prohibiting theuse of forced labour, not making purchasing decisions on price alone, steps
to be taken should a contractor be found to use forced labour, or requiring
government contractors over a certain value to maintain compliance plans.

1.1.3 Annual reports
on government
action to prevent
use of forced
labour in public
procurement are
produced andpublicly available

The government releases reports on activities taken to prevent use of forced
labour in public procurement
AND this has to have occurred since 30 June 2012.
OR if the policy has been adopted in the last two years (since 1 February 2015),
it is enough that reporting is stipulated as part of regulating compliance.
The report can also be on human rights but include a sub section onmodern slavery.

1.1.4 The
government has
provided training to
public procurement
officials on modern
slavery

The government has provided training to procurement officials on what ismodern slavery, how it is relevant to their role, existing government policies
and their implementation.
This training is provided face to face, or through online training modules, andhas occurred at least once since 30 June 2012.

1.1.5 There isevidence that the
government has
taken remedialaction where forced
labour has been
discovered

There is evidence that the government has worked with contractors to
implement corrective action plans who have identified issues with the use offorced labour.
OR where the use of forced labour is prevalent and the contractor is unwillingto work with the government, there is evidence that the government hascancelled the contract.
AND this has occurred since 30 June 2012.

2.1.1 Laws or policies
require businesses
to report on
their actions to
implement risk
minimisation
policies

Legislation or policies require business to report on their actions to minimiserisk of forced labour in their supply chain. E.g. The UK Modern Slavery Act
requires businesses earning over £36 million GBP pa to report on their actions
to combat modern slavery.

2.1.2 Governments
have identified
high-risk sectors
and taken action
to work with these
sectors to eradicate
modern slavery

The government has collaborated with businesses to identify high-risk sectors
and set up national sector specific initiatives that support businesses in aparticular sector to tackle modern slavery. These initiatives can be broader
initiatives that cover off sustainability, health and safety etc, but must include
some elements of tackling modern slavery.
For example, the sustainable textile partnership in Germany.

2.1.3 Laws orpolicies allow
governments tocreate a public listof businesses who
have been found totolerate slavery intheir supply chains

The government has worked with business and NGOs to create a public listof businesses which have been found to tolerate forced labour in their supply
chains AND/OR these businesses are prevented from accessing public funds.
For example, the "Dirty List" in Brazil.

2.1
Government
encourages
business topractice due
diligenceAppendices217

Table 8 continued.
Milestone 5: Government and business stop sourcing goods and services produced by forced labour
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY

INDICATOR 2018

RATING DESCRIPTION

2.1.4 Governments
implement a
responsible
investment
reportingrequirement forinvestment funds
and banks headquartered in theircountry to ensurethat investment
does not support
modern slavery

Investment funds and banks head quartered the country have to report on
modern slavery risk in investments AND Reporting must occur at least every
two years. If policy is in place, there MUST be evidence that this has occurredsince 30 June 2012 OR If the policy has just been adopted, it is enough thatreporting is stipulated as part of regulating compliance. NOTE: There must
be explicit mention of modern slavery NOT Investment funds or banks have
corporate social responsibility policies that require them to report on humanrights UNLESS modern slavey forms part of this reporting.

2.1.5 Laws orpolicies prevent theimport of goods andservices made withforced labour

The government has prohibited the import of goods and services made withforced labour. For example, the US Tariff Act.

2.1.6 Laws are inplace that make it acriminal offence forCompany Directors
or companies who
fail to prevent
modern slavery andfailed to undertake
reasonable due
diligence in first tiersupply chain.

Directors can be charged and prosecuted for slavery in first tier supply chains
where it can be shown that due diligence has not occurred. This indicatormeasures the existence of this provision in legislation.

218

Global Slavery Index 2018Children in a village collecting grains.
Kaesong, North Korea, 2012. Citizens inNorth Korea start communal services fromeither elementary, middle or high school.
School children are mobilised for mandatory
work through their schools.
Photo credit: Eric Lafforgue/Art in All of Us
via Getty Images

Appendices

219

MILESTONE 4, INDICATOR M4 1.8.1"STATE-IMPOSED FORCED LABOUR"
For the 2018 Global Slavery Index, we reviewed the indicator within the government response conceptual framework
covering state-imposed forced labour (M4 1.8.1). This was for several reasons. First, the data collected in 2016 tended tocover reported instances of state-imposed forced labour, but did not review the legislative gaps that allow state-imposed
forced labour to occur. Secondly, the release of the state-imposed forced labour estimate in the Global Estimates suggested
that the prevalence of state-imposed forced labour was perhaps higher than previously thought.84 And finally, in producing
the Global Estimates, the ILO developed a typology of state-imposed forced labour that can be applied systematically to all
countries. This was adopted in the Global Slavery Index.
We reviewed the ILO’s typology against the available data in the relevant Committee of Experts comments and observations
released by ILO. Once a country has ratified an ILO Convention, it is obliged to report regularly on measures it has taken
to implement it. The Committee of Experts then reviews these reports as impartial and technical experts and provides anevaluation of the state of application of international labour standards. The Committee of Experts then releases two typesof statements: observations and direct requests. Observations provide comments on fundamental questions raised by
the application of a particular convention by a state while direct requests relate to more technical questions or requests
for additional information. Both observations and direct requests are available online. Each year, the ILO Conference
discusses and adopts the Conference Committee’s report in its plenary.85
The typology developed by the ILO prior to the release of the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery covers six types of stateimposed forced labour:»» Abuse of conscription, when conscripts are forced to work for tasks which are not of purely military character.
»» Obligation to perform work beyond normal civic obligations.
»» Abuse of the obligation to participate in minor communal services, when these services are not in the direct interestof the community and have not benefited from prior consultation of the members of the said community.
»» Prison labour:»» Compulsory prison labour of prisoners in remand or in administrative detention.
»» Compulsory prison labour exacted for the benefit of private individuals, companies, or associations outside theexceptions allowed by the ILO supervisory bodies.
»» Compulsory prison labour exacted from persons under certain circumstances, such as punishment for expressing
political views, labour discipline, or peaceful participation in strikes.
»» Compulsory labour for the purpose of economic development.
»» Forced recruitment of children by governments.86
The team conducted a search of the ILO NORMLEX database, which houses all observations and direct requests from theILO Committee of Experts,87 and extracted the most up to date observation and direct request88 for both C105 the Abolitionof Forced Labour Convention, 1957 and C029 the Forced Labour Convention, 1930. These observations and direct requests,
once housed in the government response database, were then reviewed to identify gaps in legislation that have facilitatedstate-imposed forced labour in line with the above typology. These countries were reviewed twice to ensure accuracy.
Once we had a final list of countries for which we identified relevant gaps in legislation, we then conducted additional
research89 to find evidence that state-imposed forced labour had occurred in practice in the previous two years. The two
types of information (Committee of Experts observations and direct requests as well as secondary supplementary evidenceof occurrence in practice) were viewed together to make a judgement on whether there was evidence of state-imposed
forced labour in line with the following rating rules:»» Where there was evidence of gaps in legislation, but NO evidence found in practice, countries were rated as 0 – noevidence of state-imposed forced labour was found.
»» Where there was evidence of gaps in legislation AND that state-imposed forced labour had occurred in recent years,
countries were rated as -1 – evidence of state-imposed forced labour was found.
»» Where there was evidence of state-imposed forced labour but there were NO evidence of gaps in legislation, this was
rated as -1 – evidence of state-imposed forced labour was found.
The third option occurred when countries had not ratified the relevant conventions, and so were not subject to ILO
Committee of Experts monitoring and reporting. For countries that fell under the third category, alternative independentsources were used to verify the existence of state-imposed forced labour. Any countries for which the rating was unclear
were referred to an independent party for review.

220

Global Slavery Index 2018

APPENDIX 3:

Methodology for identifying risk of modern slavery in products imported by the G20

Objective
This project aims to provide a high-level indication of how
the world’s most developed countries are connected tomodern slavery not only through exploitation occurring
within their own borders but also through the goods
they import. Our focus is the G20 countries as they rank
among the largest importers (and exporters) in the world,
accounting for three-quarters of global trade and taking 80
percent of developing country exports.90
Accordingly, as a first step we developed a list of products
at-risk of modern slavery. We then compiled import data
for all G20 countries targeting the products and source
countries that were identified to be at risk of modern
slavery. The bibliography of the research on products withrisk of modern slavery is included in this appendix.

Identifying a list of products at riskof modern slavery
Initial list
Our starting point was the 2016 US Department of Labor listof goods produced by forced labour and child labour.91 The
list was first filtered by “forced labour” to ensure that
products suspected of being produced only by child labour
were excluded. A simple country count of products was
performed to determine a ranking: the product with thehighest number of countries listed against it was ranked
first, the product with the second highest numbers ofcountries against it was ranked second, and so on. The
top 15 products were then chosen from this list to produce
an initial list of product/source country combinations at riskof modern slavery (see Table 1).

TABLE 1
Initial list of goods at risk of being produced by modern slavery
Ranking

Product at risk of modern slavery

Source countries

1

CottonBenin, Burkina Faso, China, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan

2

BricksAfghanistan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Korea, Democratic People's Republic of(North Korea), Pakistan

3

Garments (Apparel and clothing
accessories)

Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam

4CattleBolivia, Brazil, Niger, Paraguay, South Sudan

5

Sugarcane

Bolivia, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Myanmar, Pakistan

6

Gold

Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea), Peru

7

Carpets

India, Nepal, Pakistan

8

Coal

China, Korea, Democratic People's Republic of (North Korea), Pakistan

9

Fish

Ghana, Indonesia, Thailand

10

Rice

India, Mali, Myanmar

11

TimberBrazil, Korea, Democratic People's Republic of (North Korea), Peru

12

Brazil nuts/chestnuts

Bolivia, Peru

13

Cocoa

Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria

14

Diamonds

Angola, Sierra Leone

15

Electronics (Laptops, computers,
and mobile phones)

China, Malaysia

Appendices

Literature review
As a next step, a literature review of this list of product/source
country combinations was conducted to independently
validate this list, using the following parameters:»» Reference period: published between 1 January 2012
to 1 March 2018.
»» Mix of media and non-media sources (peer reviewed
journal articles, research reports, government
documents, international oganisation reports, NGO
reports, etc.), whenever possible.
There was a hierarchy of sources that was used in
conducting this research (see list below). It should be
noted that this list is not exhaustive, and we performed
additional searches where suggested sources did notprovide sufficient information.
Hierarchy of sources:
1 / Peer reviewed publications, e.g. articles from scientificjournals identified through database searches and,if required, through Google Scholar.
2 / Reports of international organisations, e.g. ILO, IOM, UN.
3 / Reports of international NGOs, e.g. Human Rights Watch,
Amnesty International.
4 / Government websites, e.g. Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
5 / National NGOs
6 / Media, through Google searches.

221

Inclusion criteria of product/source
country combinations on basis ofliterature review
Once the literature review was completed, a product/source country combination was included if it was EITHER
on the 2016 Department of Labor list of goods producedby forced labour OR had been identified as at risk throughresearch conducted by the Walk Free Foundation (in thecase of fishing and cocoa). In addition, at least one of thefollowing criteria had to be met:»» A journal article identifies modern slavery in the
product sector/source country.
»» A primary research report (qualitative or quantitative)
confirms modern slavery in the product sector/
source country.
»» A report from an international organisation identifies
modern slavery in the product sector/source country.
»» Cases of modern slavery were reported in the productsector/source country either through NGO or media
reports and these reports were based on eye witness
accounts or interviews with victims.
If no relevant references were found, the product/source
country combination was excluded.

222

Global Slavery Index 2018

Final list of products at risk of modern
slavery
The literature review resulted in the following final list. The
results of our research are written up in Section 4 of thisAppendix. Source countries marked in red were deleted
from the list. The countries marked in green were added
to the final list on the basis of the Walk Free Foundation's
research on modern slavery in the fishing and cocoa
industry (see Table 2).

TABLE 2
Final list of products at risk of modern slavery by source country
Product“Source Countries”

CottonBenin, Burkina Faso, China, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

BricksAfghanistan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Korea, Democratic People's Republic of(North Korea), Pakistan

Garments(Apparel and clothing accessories)

Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam

CattleBolivia, Brazil, Niger, Paraguay, South Sudan

Sugarcane

Bolivia, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Myanmar, PakistanGold

Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Korea, Democratic People's Republicof (North Korea), Peru

Carpets

India, Nepal, Pakistan

Coal

China, Korea, Democratic People's Republic of (North Korea), Pakistan

Fish

China, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, Korea, Republic of (South Korea), Taiwan,
ThailandRice

India, Mali, Myanmar

TimberBrazil, Korea, Democratic People's Republic of (North Korea), Peru

Brazil nuts/chestnuts

Bolivia, Peru

Cocoa

Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria, Ghana

Diamonds

Angola, Sierra Leone

Electronics(Laptops, computers and mobile phones)

China, Malaysia

Import data
Country list: G20 countries
Trade data were obtained for 18 of the total number of theG20 member countries. South Africa was excluded as it
does not report trade data individually but only throughthe Southern African Customs Union, which comprises fivecountries (South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, andSwaziland). The European Union was excluded as much ofits trade data were already captured in the data of Germany,
Italy, France, and the UK.

6 / France
7 / Germany
8 / India
9 / Indonesia
10 / Italy
11 / Japan
12 / Mexico

The final list of countries includes:

13 / Russia

1/

Argentina

14 / Saudi Arabia

2 / Australia

15 / South Korea

3 / Brazil

16 / Turkey

4 / Canada

17 / United Kingdom

5 / China

18 / United States

Appendices

Data source and definitions
BACI dataset
The import data used for this project were taken fromthe BACI dataset.92 BACI is the world trade databasedeveloped by the French research centre CEPII (Centred' Études Prospectives et d'Informations Internationales)
at a high level of product disaggregation.
Original trade data are provided by the United Nations
Statistical Division (COMTRADE database). BACI isconstructed using a procedure that reconciles thedeclarations of the exporter and the importer. This
harmonization procedure enables to extend considerably
the number of countries for which trade data are available,
as compared to the original dataset. The dataset gives
information about the value of trade (v, in thousands of
US dollars) and the quantity (q, in tons). Individual tradeflows are identified by the exporter (i), the importer (j), theproduct category (hs6), and the year (t). BACI is available
with versions 1992, 1996, 2002, 2007 and 2012 of theHarmonized System (HS) with six-digit disaggregation.
For this project, we used the 2015 BACI trade data set withthe 2012 HS nomenclature, which is the most recent one
available at the time of writing.
The codebook for countries in the BACI database can be
downloaded from http://www.cepii.fr/cepii/en/bdd_modele/presentation.asp?id=1.
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding
Systems (HS)The Harmonized System is an international nomenclature
for the classification of products. It allows participating
countries to classify traded goods on a common basis
for customs purposes. At the international level, theHarmonized System (HS) for classifying goods is a six-digit
code system.

223

The HS comprises approximately 5,300 productdescriptions that appear as headings and subheadings,
arranged in 99 chapters and grouped into 21 sections. The
six digits can be broken down into three parts. The first twodigits (HS-2) identify the chapter the goods are classified
in, e.g. 09 = Coffee, Tea, Maté and Spices. The next twodigits (HS-4) identify groupings within that chapter, e.g.
09.02 = Tea, whether or not flavoured. The next two digits(HS-6) are even more specific, e.g. 09.02.10 Green tea(not fermented). Up to the HS six-digit level, all countries
classify products in the same way (a few exceptions exist
where some countries apply old versions of the HS).
The Harmonized System was introduced in 1988 andhas been adopted by most countries worldwide. It has
undergone several changes in the classification of products.
These changes are called revisions and entered into force
in 1996, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017.

Data compilation
Each of the 15 products from the final list in Table 2 isrepresented by multiple HS product categories within
the BACI trade dataset. The relevant HS 2012 productcategories for the 15 products were identified using theonline directory. https://www.foreign-trade.com/reference/
hscode.htm
Using STATA, import data for all relevant product categories
and source countries in Table 2 were extracted from the2015 BACI dataset for all 18 countries listed above.
The 15 products were then ranked from highest to lowest
according to import value in US$. The resulting list of top fiveproducts at risk of modern slavery (according to US$ value)
imported by each of the G20 countries is presented in Table 3.
The data are also presented in the Importing risk maps on
p.120 to 137.

224

Global Slavery Index 2018

TABLE 3Top five products at risk of modern slavery (according to US$ value) imported by G20 countries93
G20 country

Argentina

Import product at risk of modern slavery

Source countries

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

446,275
20,925

Apparel and clothing accessories

BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam

3,315
157,343
21,8094,397
5,470
22,792

TimberBrazilPeru

34,219110

Fish

Indonesia
Japan
Korea, Republic of (South Korea)
Thailand74
4
6
20,225

Carpets

India
Pakistan

2,253
17

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

6,671,902
351,283

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam177
2,462
4,091,699
167,223
17,18074,705
166,564

Fish

China
Ghana
Indonesia
Japan
RussiaKorea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

47,346
3
49,675
5,629
277
1,809
40,250223,118

Rice

India

40,625

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

18,146
4,412

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
China
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam

26,7391,495,047
147,849
9,950
21,442
95,044Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

786,72245,386Fish

China
Indonesia
Japan
Korea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

179,143
112
1,268
102
11,372
20,449CattleParaguay

124,435

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

25,10732,537Australia

BrazilImport value(in thousands of US$)Appendices225

Table 3 continued.

G20 country

CanadaChina

FranceImport product at risk of modern slavery

Source countries

Import value(in thousands of US$)

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

7,552,860
67,534

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam66
954
3,723,363
291,598
33,88064,903628,708

Gold

Peru

1,584,163

Fish

China
Ghana
Indonesia
Japan
RussiaKorea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

192,932289
11,117
10,916
11,456
5,661
15,301
144,062

Sugarcane

BrazilDominican Republic

243,305
4

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

Malaysia

1,602,835

FishIndonesia
Japan
RussiaKorea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

78,44990,305
937,468
137,335
153,251
61,166

Coal

Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)

954,000

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilIndia
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam595
162
91,383
24,61083,970621,115

Sugarcane

Brazil755,999

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam53
3,377
6,418,827
1,041,238
38,178
149,432
578,992

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

7,036,778
36,767

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

455,281
156,518

Fish

China
Ghana
Indonesia
Japan
RussiaKorea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

183,007
77,18418,042
1,088
43,011
39,6493,136
29,654

TimberBrazilPeru

84,504
6,499

226

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 3 continued.
G20 country

Germany

Import product at risk of modern slavery

Source countries

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

16,646,149
254,738

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam28
1,290
8,803,808
1,384,465
72,549148,479
1,041,373

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

488,827
127,566

Fish

China
Ghana
Indonesia
Japan
RussiaKorea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

428,976
2,607
21,274
4,029
31,166
4,499
3,210
19,010TimberBrazilPeru

86,760537

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

8,113,175
225,756

Sugarcane

Brazil456,472

Gold

Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of (North Korea)
Peru

18
363,777

Apparel and clothing accessories

BrazilChina
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam28
336,039
4,338
9,902
9,738

Diamonds

Angola97,062Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

1,557,687
100,206

Apparel and clothing accessories

China
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam

738,729
6,926
23,472
7,330
11,305

Fish

China
Japan
Korea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

101,778
17,9401,880
50,641
4,835

Sugarcane

Brazil117,879

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire

46,078

India

Indonesia

Import value(in thousands of US$)Appendices227

Table 3 continued.
G20 country

Italy

Import product at risk of modern slavery

Source countries

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam53
1,965
3,203,516
379,242
8,521
38,604
213,159

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

2,830,742
2,425

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

168,696
58,575CattleBrazilParaguay

222,628
2,526

Fish

China
Ghana
Indonesia
Japan
RussiaKorea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

22,145,679
245,182

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam959
2,863
17,050,285
227,060
108,725
438,320
2,776,670

Fish

China
Ghana
Indonesia
RussiaKorea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

12,920110,615

TimberBrazilPeru

96,184293

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

7,787,135
225,563

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam

4,401
1,690
1,230,424
176,321
13,033
8,576
180,205

Fish

China
Indonesia
Japan
Korea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

189,636
10,782
2,756
1,313
2,628
653

TimberBrazilPeru

143,162
30,858

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

50,939650

Japan

MexicoImport value(in thousands of US$)56,17914,70941,424877
1,053
22,2198,096
47,712

1,512,309
2,915
224,319
320,058
369,356442,238
451,197

228

Global Slavery Index 2018

Table 3 continued.
G20 country

Import product at risk of modern slavery

Source countries

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

3,833,771
50,923

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam

4425
2,713,472
140,659
9,274
16,906
144,392

CattleBrazilParaguay

566,803
350,720

Sugarcane

Brazil321,834

Fish

China
Indonesia
Japan
Korea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

177,819
11,564
10,331
5,058
8,465
36,122

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam15768
1,866,408
405,613
11,15524,404
51,142Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

1,963,891
28,724

Rice

India

1,080,016

Fish

China
Indonesia
Japan
Korea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

3,172
62,376
11,211
2,028
18,791
123,511

Sugarcane

Brazil

184,548

RussiaSaudi Arabia

South Africa

Import value(in thousands of US$)*No data available*
Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

6,979,552
54,313

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam131
319
3,645,332
59,181
8,986
71,9442,181,292

Fish

China
Ghana
Indonesia
Japan
RussiaTaiwanThailand

613,889
52
33,29076,388508,892
93,711
44,531

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

409
16,505

TimberBrazilPeru

14,897
1,779

Korea, Republic of(South Korea)

Appendices229

Table 3 continued.
G20 country

Import product at risk of modern slavery

Source countries

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

3,286,769
18,514

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam

39
266
694,144
87,433
9,698
10,41566,246

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

231,487
147,275

CottonKazakhstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

1,034
32,362
207,999
10,622

Rice

India
Myanmar33,000288

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam57
1,125
7,298,820
1,858,359
42,10088,890745,491

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

7,996,205
58,791

Fish

China
Ghana
Indonesia
Japan
RussiaKorea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

227,449
88,37732,563
4,068
51,306798
626
75,037

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

208,321
77,410

Rice

India
Myanmar172,9214,303

Laptops, computers and mobile phones

China
Malaysia

89,490,687
1,546,001

Apparel and clothing accessories

Argentina
BrazilChina
India
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam316
19,33730,468,913
3,855,523
564,210
1,079,637
11,258,322

Fish

China
Ghana
Indonesia
Japan
RussiaKorea, Republic of (South Korea)
TaiwanThailand

1,983,840
121
322,695
169,315
34,876
101,293
136,624
535,025

Cocoa

Côte d’Ivoire
Ghana

981,623
218,650

TimberBrazilPeru

843,306
22,402TurkeyUnited Kingdom

United States

Import value(in thousands of US$)230

Global Slavery Index 2018

Bibliography of products at risk of modern slavery
The following section sets out the results of the literature review that we conducted to identify risk of modern slavery in the
products listed in Table 2.

CottonKazakhstan

Turkmenistan

Various United Nations organisations have collected
evidence that the cotton sector in Kazakhstan is affectedby modern slavery, particularly among migrant workers.
The UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms ofslavery conducted an official mission to Kazakhstan in 2012.
Kazakhstan is a major destination for low-skilled migrant
workers, mainly from Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.
Forced and bonded labour occurs in the cotton, tobacco,and construction industry. A majority of the migrants comefor approximately six months to harvest the cotton but
often they do not have official work permits.94 The Special
Rapporteur stated during her follow-up visit in 2014 that
forms of slavery and forced and bonded labour persist,in particular in the cotton and construction industries.95 In
2016, the UN Human Rights Committee voiced its concerns
over reports of forced and bonded labour, particularly of
migrant workers, in the tobacco, cotton, and constructionindustries as well as abuse of migrant workers, including
poor and hazardous working conditions, delayed payment,
and confiscation of identity documents.96

Amnesty International’s 2016/17 annual human rights report
alleges that the Turkmen government continued to use
forced labour in the country’s cotton picking industry, which
is one of the largest in the world. To harvest the cotton,
local authorities compel public sector workers, including
teachers, medical staff, and civil servants, to pick cotton andto meet individual government-set quotas or else they risk
losing their jobs.101 The ILO Committee of Experts also noted
in 2017 that tens of thousands of adults from the public andprivate sectors were forced to pick cotton and farmers wereforced to fulfil state-established cotton production quotas,
all under threat of a penalty.102 Other threats of penalties
that have been reported include loss of land, expulsion
from university, loss of wages or salary cuts, terminationof employment, and other sanctions.103 In 2014, a Turkmen
media initiative gathered evidence from government
officials, farmers, public sector workers, and businessmen
who provided first-hand accounts, documentary evidence,and photographs showing that Turkmenistan violatesinternational and national laws by forcing farmers and othercitizens to work in the cotton sector.104

Tajikistan
Forced labour of adults and children during the cotton
harvest in Tajikistan has decreased over the last few
years. The International Organization for Migration (IOM)
conducted studies in 2012, 2013, and 2015 assessing the
exploitation during cotton harvest through surveys andinterviews with adults and children. IOM found that theobserved number of students and children participating inthe 2012 cotton harvest (including those that were forcibly
mobilised) was a lot smaller than in previous years. Still, theresearchers identified frequent labour violations among
adults picking cotton, including not being paid for the workand not having a written contract.97 The results from the 2012
cotton harvest largely confirmed the 2011 results.98 However,
the assessment of the 2015 cotton harvest in Tajikistan
showed improvements, where only a limited number ofchildren had to pick cotton and none reported having been
forced to work. Equally, no adult workers reported having
been mobilised or forced to work in the harvest, with only
two labour violations being reported.99 On the other hand,the 2017 US Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report suggests thatTajik adults and children may still be subject to forced labourin the annual cotton harvest.100

Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan has been under scrutiny for a long time forforced labour in its annual cotton harvest. A monitoring
report of the 2017 cotton harvest published by the ILO
states that most cotton pickers were recruited voluntarily
and that the systematic use of child labour in Uzbekistan’s
cotton harvest has come to an end.105 The previous ILO
monitoring report of the 2016 cotton harvest stated similar
results on child labour but concluded that forced labour
remained a risk for some categories of people, such asstaff of educational and medical facilities and students.106
However, other research published by Human Rights Watch(HRW) and the Uzbek-German Forum for Human Rights
details the existence of forced labour in the cotton industry
in Uzbekistan, mostly based on interviews and field visits.
A 2017 report documents forced adult and child labour in
one World Bank project area and demonstrates that it ishighly likely that the World Bank’s other agriculture projects
in Uzbekistan are linked to ongoing forced labour in lightof the systemic nature of the abuses.107 The Uzbek-German
Forum for Human Rights estimated that during the 2015
cotton harvest the government forced more than a million
people of all backgrounds to pick cotton in the fields against
their will and under threat of penalty.108 Similar estimates
were provided in a HRW report in 2013.109

Appendices231

BricksAfghanistan
Bonded labour in Afghanistan is reportedly most prevalent
in the brick kilns near Kabul and the Nangarhar province.
Each kiln employs around 10 to 30 families, who live on site
and work 10 to 15 hours per day exposed to sun and dust.
Children work in hazardous conditions alongside their debtbonded parents. The seasonality of the work is one reason
children do not go to school, another reason being thatfamilies need all children to work as many hours as possible
to help pay off the family debt.110 The ILO and UNICEF
conducted a study of Afghanistan’s brick industry, using a
mix of focus group discussions and interviews with children,
adults, and kiln owners. They found that 68 percent of childlabourer respondents said they could not stop working at
brick kilns if they wished to. About 86 percent of children
said their parents are forcing them to work at the kilns and,of these, 83 percent cited the reason that their parents
owed money to someone else.111 Workers’ debt can be soldoff several times, with higher interest rates attached to eachsale; this can be negotiated by the workers themselves
or among kiln owners. In this way, indebted families must
follow their debt to the next kiln owner.112

India
The brick industry in India is huge with more than
150,000 brick production units in the country employing
an estimated 10 million workers and contributing £3bn
(US$4.2bn113) to the Indian economy annually. During
the six-month production season, tens of thousands offamilies come to work in the brick kilns in Andhra Pradesh.
The industry is known to rely on entire families working inbonded labour, with minimum pay and few or no health andsafety regulations.114 Families work 12- to 18-hour days undersqualid conditions, including severe abuses.115 The Andhra
Pradesh state labour commissioner has denied bonded
labour exists.116 In 2015, the International Justice Mission(IJM) reportedly tipped off officials to a bondage situation ina brick kiln in Thiruvallur district, which led to the rescue of
333 bonded labourers, including 75 children. The workers
each had to pay recruitment fees and were promised 300
rupees (US$4.6117) a day but were only paid 200 rupees(US$3118) a week.119 In 2017, a brick kiln owner who was
accused of trapping and abusing 12 labourers was foundguilty under India’s Bonded Labour System Abolition Act(1976) and Section 370 of the penal code covering humantrafficking.120

Myanmar
In a 2016 case in Kyaikmaraw township in Mon State workers
claim they were starved and abused while working at abrickyard. The workers, many of whom were young womenand children, said they had been forced to work from 3am

to 10pm with no time off for food or rest, and were paid lessthan they were promised. The workers were freed during
two raids by officials, including anti-trafficking police.121 The
owners of the brick works denied the accusations. In
January 2017, the state’s factories and general labour law
department announced a reversal on plans to pursue legal
charges against the brickyard owner. It was reported thatthe brickyard owner will not be facing charges but insteada warning will be issued.122 It remains therefore unclear if
the alleged accusations were valid or not.

Nepal
Due to the seasonal nature of the job and the tough anddemanding working conditions, brick kiln workers in Nepal
often come from marginalised and poor communities andhave few employment alternatives. Many brick kiln owners
ensure a steady supply of cheap labour through a systemof loans and debt that ties workers to the kiln for months
or years. Brought to the kilns by middlemen, workers areoffered the financial incentive of an advance to get themthrough the monsoon months. In return, they must turnup for work at the start of the next brickmaking season,
which runs from November to May, in order to pay back theloan.123 A 2015 Guardian investigation revealed that bricks
tainted by human rights abuses, such as child labour, havebeen used in major construction projects in Nepal. The
findings suggest that international donors, aid agencies,
multinational companies, and the Nepalese government
are systematically failing to ensure that effective policies
are in place to keep brick supply chains free of child andbonded labour and that they have failed to recognise theappalling conditions prevalent in Nepal’s brick industry.124

PakistanEthnographic research into brick kilns in the areas of Gujarat,
Islamabad, and Rawalpindi in 2015 and 2016 showed thatthey are the primary sector in which bonded labour occurs
in Pakistan. Debt chains drive the brick industry because
they guarantee cheap labour and a continuous supply ofworkers. Debt passes down through the generations andfrom one kiln to another.125 A 2014 study looking at Pakistan’speshgi system of debt bondage found that workers in brickkilns were working under squalid conditions that lacked safe
drinking water and access to health facilities, and they weredenied any chance of upward mobility or contact with theirfamilies.126 Several UN treaty bodies were concerned that,
despite Pakistan’s adoption of the Bonded Labour System(Abolition) Act of 1992, bonded labour practices persisted in
the brick kiln industry.127 The UN Human Rights Committee
reported in 2017 that it was concerned by the high numberof children engaged in labour under hazardous and slaverylike conditions in Pakistan’s brick kilns.128

232

Global Slavery Index 2018

Garments
BrazilA 2012 study interviewing cross-border migrants from
Bolivia who worked in the garment sector in Brazil foundworkers reporting conditions of “unfree” labour andexploitation, including workplace hazard, substandard
accommodation, extremely long working hours, nonpayment, and illegal pay deductions.129 A 2013 reportnotes that any migrant workers from poorer Latin Americancountries such as Bolivia, Peru, or Haiti have to endure
abuse and exploitation working in the booming textile
sector in São Paulo.130 In 2016, an Aljazeera investigative
journalist team discovered clandestine textile sweatshops
in the Bras neighbourhood in the heart of São Paulo, in
which underpaid workers toil for long and exhausting hours
in dreadful conditions to mass produce garments for thecountry's clothing industry.131

overtime. Management employs humiliating disciplinary
measures and does not provide paid sick leave despiteharsh conditions without protective equipment.138 Many
women under the Sumangali scheme never receive thelump sum payment they are promised will be paid at theend of their term because they leave early, often due toillness. Although this is recognised by Indian courts as aform of slavery, it is widely practiced in states such Tamil
Nadu.139 It is also suggested that bondage in the garment
industry is not only the result of debt-based structures but
also forced labour and wage theft. Overtime is required
without workers’ consent and sometimes even without
proper compensation and enforced by threat of firing.140

China

The garment and textile industry in Malaysia has beenfound in many cases to be dangerously negligent about
enforcing legal standards regarding wages and working
conditions of migrant women workers. Research basedon qualitative, in-depth interviews with 30 migrant women
workers from Burma who came to Malaysia to work in thegarment industry found that workers had no employment
contracts or, where they did, the contracts were illegal.
Workers regularly worked 10-hour days without overtime
pay and faced harassment and unsafe working and living
conditions. In return, they received wages far below theminimum needed to survive. All interviewed women also
reported that their passports were held by their employer
or an outsourced hiring agent.141

Between 2007 and 2013, researchers interviewed 59
people recently released from drug detention “re-education
through labour” centres in China. Respondents reported
that they were forced to work in clothing production (among
other activities). Detainees also reported being punished
if they refused to perform labour. They received no pay for
their work.132 In 2017, workers at a factory producing shoes
for international brands in south eastern China reported
they were physically and verbally abused.133 Another news
report alleges forced overtime at the same factory.134 In
2017, inspections by the Fair Labour Association, a USbased industry monitoring group, in a factory in China
producing clothes for international brands exposed thatworkers were made to work excessively long hours to hit
production targets and were paid below China’s minimum
wage.135 The audit also found that the factory breached
24 international labour standards set by the International
Labour Organization although it is unclear if the Forced
Labour Convention was one of them.136

India
A 2016 qualitative research report details the grievancesof young women under the Sumangali or “camp labour”
schemes, whereby workers are housed in companyowned hostels with restricted freedom of movement. Thisapproach is used to ensure the women are available towork on call and are unable to unionise. A portion of their
pay is withheld until completion of their fixed-term contracts.
Women from lower castes in remote regions are specificallytargeted during recruitment.137 Other research based oninterviews with more than 150 girls and young women on
annual leave from mills in Tamil Nadu in 2013 concluded thatgirls and young women are lured to the Tamil Nadu spinningindustry by false promises and are forced to work underappalling conditions. It was mentioned that their freedomof movement is restricted, mobile phones are not allowed,
and workers are effectively locked up in the mills. They
work 60 hours per week year-round and cannot refuse

Malaysia

ThailandResearch involving interviews in the field with migrant
workers working in garment factories in the Mae Sot regionof Thailand during 2014 shows how migrants working in the
textile and garment factories there are vulnerable to labour
rights violations and exploitation, including being paidless than other Thai workers, having their documentation
confiscated, and paying too much into health and social
benefit plans that they do not know how to claim.142 While
the research does not clearly reveal modern slavery,practices such as withholding of identity documents canbe indicators of that.

Vietnam
Between 2007 and 2013, researchers interviewed 34 people
recently released from drug detention centres in Vietnam.
Researchers found forced labour reported by all respondents
detained in Vietnam, with some of the detainees forced towork in textile production. Regulations give treatment centre
management the authority to punish detainees who refuse
to perform labour. Respondents indicated being paid anaverage wage of US$7.30 a month before deductions forfood, though several former detainees reported still owing
the detention centres money for additional fees at the endof their sentences.143 A 2013 media article reported the caseAppendicesof three boys who escaped a garment factory in Ho Chi
Minh City where they had spent two years making clothes
for no pay. It is also reported that during a recent raid ofa garment factory, Vietnam-based charity Blue DragonChildren’s Foundation found 14 people that were working
under exploitative and dangerous conditions.144

CattleBolivia
Bolivia’s cattle industry is suspected to be at risk of modern
slavery. In 2010 to 2011, US-based NGO Verité carried out
both qualitative and quantitative field research on cattle,
corn, and peanuts in the Chaco region. The researchdetected severe indicators of forced labour, including
physical confinement at the work location, psychologicalcompulsion, induced indebtedness, deception or false
promises about terms of work, and withholding and nonpayment of wages. There was also evidence of the presenceof indicators of menace of penalty, including physicalviolence against workers, sexual violence, and loss of social
status. Other issues of concern detected during research
included excessive working hours, a lack of days off forworkers in animal husbandry, subminimum wages, serious
hazards to workers' health and safety, and child labour.145

BrazilIn 2017, the Government of Brazil was ordered by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights to pay US$5 million to
128 former farm workers who were enslaved on a Brazilian
cattle farm between 1988 and 2000.146 During a 2017 raid
at a cattle ranch in the Amazonian rainforest of northern
Brazil, labour inspectors found seven workers who claim
they were made to live in shacks, worked 12-hour days,
were paid infrequently, and had money deducted fromtheir wages for alleged debts they owed to their boss.147 UK
supermarket chain Waitrose announced it was taking its
own-branded corned beef from Brazil off supermarket
shelves after it was revealed that one of the world’s largest
meat processing companies previously purchased cattle
from a farm under federal investigation for using workers
as modern-day slaves in 2016. Prosecutors believe theworkers were in debt bondage, with payments for food andprotective equipment illegally deducted from their wages.148

Niger
Niger continues to be afflicted by descent-based slavery
where people are born into slavery with slave status being
passed down the maternal line. The UN Special Rapporteuron contemporary forms of slavery conducted a mission
to Niger in 2015 which found that despite being legallyabolished, descent-based slavery continues to exist in
Tuareg, Fulani (Peul), Toubou, and Arab communities whereslaves still live with their masters. The slaves are at theentire disposal of the master; in exchange, they are fed andclothed. Slaves reportedly work long hours, mainly in cattle
rearing, agriculture, and domestic work, and are not paid.149

233

Paraguay
According to a 2013 report of the ILO Conference
Committee on the Application of Standards, various worker
representatives of Paraguay stated that debt bondage ofindigenous communities on land used for cattle-raising is an
issue the Paraguayan authorities are well aware of. One of themost serious issues is reportedly the debts incurred by farmworkers through having to buy food from their employers,
who determine the prices. The worker representatives also
requested that further measures should be taken by thegovernment to prevent forced labour and provide support
to indigenous communities in the cattle industry.150

Sugarcane
BrazilA 2012 study examining slave labour in Brazil conductedsemi-structured interviews with internal migrants in thesugarcane industry. Workers reported indicators of “unfree”
labour and exploitation, including workplace hazards,
substandard accommodations, extremely long working
hours, non-payment, and illegal pay deductions.151 The
Brazilian sugar industry has also been highlighted in the
media. More than 10,000 workers were liberated fromslave-like conditions in sugar production between 2003
and 2011.152 During harvest time, one single sugar mill canhire as many as 5,000 workers and those who come fromoutside the area end up becoming trapped in debt tosurvive, working in precarious conditions.153

Dominican Republic
Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods,
Verité conducted research on the supply chain of sugar in
the Dominican Republic during the 2008 to 2010 harvests.
They detected evidence of multiple indicators of forced
labour, including indicators of lack of consent (e.g. physicalconfinement in the workplace, deception about terms of work)
and indicators of menace of penalty (e.g. physical violenceagainst workers and deprivation of food and shelter). Other
issues of concern detected during the research included
illegal deductions and working hours in excess of legal
limits.154 Another paper published in 2016 explores the use ofworkers from neighboring Haiti in the Dominican agricultural
sector and the widespread human rights violations they face,particularly in the country’s sugarcane “batey” communities.155

234

Global Slavery Index 2018Gold

Carpets

Democratic Republic of the Congo

India

There is evidence indicating that the gold mining industry in
DRC is at risk of modern slavery. Field research conductedby “Free the Slaves” in three mining sites in the South Kivu
province from June 2012 to January 2013 revealed thatforced labour affected 10 percent of individuals in Kamituga,
24 percent of those in Lugushwa, and 61 percent of thosein Nyamurhale. In Nyamurhale, forced labour occurred
primarily at the hands of the military and local authorities. In
Kamituga, the so-called President Director Generals (PDGs,a term coined to designate the owner of one or more mining
shafts who employs several miners) and conductors (miner
team leaders who supervise the work undertaken by theminers) subjected individuals to forced labour in the formof excessively heavy labour and/or long days.156 Anotherstudy found that while the type of mineral mined is not
generally found to be a predictor of trafficking, respondents
in cassiterite mines were twice as likely to report sexual
violence as those in gold mines.157

A 2014 report by Harvard University’s FXB Center for Healthand Human Rights documented more than 3,200 cases offorced labour under Indian law and 2,600 cases of forced
labour under the ILO Forced Labour Convention (no. 29)
across nine states in India’s hand-made carpet industry.
The findings include 2,010 cases of bonded labour, 1,406
cases of child labour, and 286 cases of human trafficking.
The research used both primary and secondary sources.
Qualitative and quantitative data were collected throughindividual interviews with labourers in the carpet sector.
Semi-structured interview questionnaires were used for
discussion with key informants to gather information on thenature of their work in the carpet industry.160

North Korea
A UN Human Rights Council report describes how a former
inmate of a prison camp worked in the limestone quarry andthe gold mine of Ordinary Prison Camp (kyohwaso) No. 4
in Kandong County, South Pyongan Province. The inmates
there were so tired and exhausted that work accidents werevery frequent. On one occasion, one inmate suffered an
open fracture of his foot in a mining accident. The skin wassewn together without anaesthesia and he was ordered
to report back to the mine the same day. The inmate
reportedly survived only because the head of his work unit
reassigned him to lighter duties.158

Peru
Verité carried out qualitative research, interviewing workers
from August 2012 through January 2013, to assess therisk of forced labour in illegal gold mining in Peru. Workers
reported that when they arrived at the mining camps, many
were told that they owe their recruiters for the advances.
The workers found that their pay and working conditions
were not what they had been promised. They were told thatthey would have to work at least 90 days to pay off their debt
before they would be paid anything or before they would beallowed to leave, which constitutes induced indebtedness.
Workers are unable to leave their employment before theircontracts are up due to their extreme physical isolation andtheir lack of money to pay for transportation to leave theirworkplaces, which constitutes physical confinement in thework location. Interviewees reported that workers whowanted to leave were held against their will with the threatof physical violence by heavily armed guards. 159

PakistanA 2017 study conducted in provinces of Sindh, Punjab,
and Baluchistan, using witness opinions, case profiles,
and secondary information, found that children working
in carpet-weaving are often engaged in hazardous
work, suffering injuries such as eye and lung diseases
due to unsafe working conditions. The report also notesthat bonded child labour exists in Pakistan’s carpet
industry.161 Although hazardous child labour is notnecessarily considered modern slavery, it is perceived to
be a severe problem in the carpet industry of Pakistan. A
cross-sectional survey of 320 children working in the carpet
industry in Punjab province found that hazardous forms ofchild labour are evident, with notable consequences to thehealth of the children.162

Coal
North Korea
It is reported that North Korea relies on forced labour ona large scale to operate its mining industry. The allocationof labour to the coal and mining industries is not formallyregulated by law. However, the ruling party compels certain
individuals to work in these sectors as a matter of policy. For
those working in this industry, moving to a different sector
or occupation is strictly limited and controlled. Under the
regime’s songbun classification system (a loyalty-basedsocial discrimination system) the most powerless membersof society and those of low songbun are forcibly assigned towork in the mining sector. This occupational assignment ispassed down from generation to generation.163 The politicalprison camps run their own factories, farms, mines, andlogging operations, producing among other things coal,
clothing for the military, and consumer goods. A witness
cited in a UN report, Ms. Kim Hyesook, said she had to workin a coal mine at Political Prison Camp No. 18 from age 15.
Although there was nominally a system of three shifts, they
ended up having to work 16 to 18 hours a day to maximise
output. The men dug up the coal with picks and shovels.
The women then had to manually transport the coal to
the surface using sacks, buckets, or coal trolleys. Both her

Appendiceshusband and her brother died in mining accidents. Like
many others forced to work in the mines, Ms. Kim still suffersfrom black lung disease.164 Forthcoming research on modern
slavery in North Korea, based on interviews conducted witha sample of North Korean defectors, notes that being a coalminer is inherited rather than being a choice. One interview
notes that “In North Korea if your parents work in the coalmines, so will you.” He reported he was not paid for this workand he was not free to leave or quit. He had also never seenor even heard about an employment contract for the work
he was doing at the coal mine.165

PakistanA 2014 survey by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
identified coal mining as one of 34 industries in whichhazardous child labour occurred.166To make ends meet,children are forced to work regardless of occupational
hazards. Such is the case of children interviewed during
the course of research conducted in Shahrig, Balochistan.
Though many yearn to be enrolled in schools, they have no
choice but work in the coal mines to earn a stable income
for the family.167 The 2017 US TIP report notes that bonded
labour is concentrated in Sindh and Punjab provinces
but also occurs in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
provinces, mainly in agriculture and brickmaking but also toa lesser extent in mining.168 Although the references listed inthis paragraph do not provide clear-cut evidence of modern
slavery in Pakistan’s coal industry, it should be noted as apotential issue.

Fish169
Ghana
In 2013, the International Justice Mission (IJM) conducted
an operational assessment in the southern region of
Lake Volta and found that more than half (57.6 percent)of children working on southern Lake Volta’s waters weretrafficked into forced labour. In 2015, in-depth qualitative
research was conducted in the top three destination andtop three source communities for trafficking. Each of thefishing communities sampled during the qualitative study
confirmed the presence of child trafficking. Both studies
revealed that the majority of children working in Lake Volta’s
fishing industry are generally 10 years old or younger. 170
Our forthcoming research suggests that of the top 20
fishing countries (by volume of catch), China, Japan,
Russia, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand are athighest risk of modern slavery in their respective fishingindustries.171 Given that instances of serious labour
abuses have been documented for China, Japan, Russia,
South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand (see below), we haveadded those countries to the original list of countries atrisk of using modern slavery in the fishing industry.

235

China
A report by IOM and the NEXUS Institute describes thelabour exploitation of Cambodian migrants aboard
commercial fishing vessels operating in South African
waters. The report is based on the experiences of 31
Cambodian men trafficked for fishing to South Africa by
Giant Ocean, a legally registered recruitment agency inCambodia, between 2010 and 2013, as well as on interviews
conducted with more than 40 key informants in 2014. In
the cases where the exploited fishers could remember theflag of the vessels on which they worked (which was about
one third of the men), vessels from China were identified.
The exploited fishers from Cambodia were recruited bybrokers in their own villages but were often misled about
where they would be going and what exactly the work
would entail. All the men reported being forced to work
long hours in harsh conditions, even when sick or injured,and that they had their identity documents withheld whileon the vessels.172 According to a 2014 media report, a groupof 28 immigrants from Ghana and Sierra Leone were heldin slavery on a Chinese-flagged fishing vessel off the coastof Uruguay, where they were beaten and forced to workwithout pay.173

Indonesia
A 2018 report draws from investigations conducted by theIndonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (KKP), theIndonesia Presidential Task Force to Combat Illegal Fishing,
and from assessments conducted by the IOM Indonesia
with fishers and seafarers, both foreign nationals andIndonesians, who were identified as victims of trafficking
and provided with IOM assistance. Victims reported being
recruited from numerous countries and forced to work
illegally within Indonesia. They suffered severe humanrights violations, including 18- to 20-hour workdays, nopayment, withholding of identity documents, physical andmental abuse, and inhumane living conditions.174 Anotherstudy analyses data from interviews with 446 males who
participated in the Study on Trafficking, Exploitation andAbuse in the Mekong (STEAM) and who reached the countryof exploitation. STEAM is a multi-site, longitudinal survey
carried out with men, women, and children receiving posttrafficking assistance in Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
The main destination country was Indonesia (46.9 percent)for fishermen.175

Japan
In the same report by IOM and the NEXUS Institute mentioned
above, some of the exploited Cambodian fishers identified
that the vessels they had been exploited on were from Japan.
Similarly, they reported having been recruited by brokers
in their own villages who worked for a legally registeredrecruitment agency. All the men reported being forced towork long hours in harsh conditions, even when sick or
injured and had their identity documents withheld whileon the vessels. They reported that crew on the Japaneseflagged fishing vessels were usually of mixed nationalities– Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, thePhilippines, Taiwan Province of China, and Vietnam. 176

236

Global Slavery Index 2018

RussiaThailandAfter the sinking of a Russian trawler in April 2015 that left 42
fishermen from Myanmar dead, a media report revealed thattwo of the five Myanmar recruitment agencies responsible
for sending the men from Myanmar aboard this vessel had
knowingly falsified workers’ registration cards. The agencies
said that such practices were standard in the industry and thatthey regularly registered recruited seamen to governmentapproved vessels, but after doing so sent the workers into
uncharted territories and unpermitted industries such as thefishing sector. Families of the deceased crewmen reported
that the men did not know they were being sent to a fishingvessel until it was too late. When the men found out they
had been deceived, they were given no other employment
options. Since the fishermen had already paid excessive
fees to the recruitment agency, they reportedly felt they had
little option but to work in fishing in exchange for promised
high wages.177

A Human Rights Watch report based on 248 interviews
with current and former workers in the fishing industry
conducted from 2015 to 2017 documents forced labourand other human rights abuses in the Thai fishing sector. It
identifies poor working conditions, recruitment processes,
terms of employment, and industry practices that put alreadyvulnerable migrant workers into abusive situations – andoften keep them there. A 2016 study found that 76 percent
of fishers had been in debt bondage and almost 38 percent
of fishers had been trafficked into the Thai fishing industry
between 2011 and 2016. The study identified that 6.5 percent
of fishers surveyed had been deceived into working aboard
Thai vessels, 3.6 percent had been confined, 31.5 percent
had been forced to work, and 15.7 percent had been
physically abused.183 Surveys conducted among fishers
employed on Thai boats fishing in national and international
waters identified that almost 17 percent of fishers interviewed
reported that they were working against their will and wereunable to leave. Of these fishers, 12 percent identified
financial penalty as the reason they were unable to leave,and 4.9 percent identified threat of violence and fear of
being reported to authorities as the reason.184 Greenpeaceinterviewed 15 human trafficking victims who worked as
fishers aboard Thai fishing vessels between 2014 and 2016.
Several victims reported being deceived into working aboard
fishing vessels and into paying large sums for passport
documentation, witnessing physical abuse against thecrew, and accruing large debts from recruitment.185 Anotherpaper discusses the findings of a large-scale survey of 596
fishers from Thailand, Cambodia, and Myanmar undertaken
in four coastal provinces in Thailand. Nearly 17 percent
of respondents identified themselves as being victims offorced labour for human trafficking.186 In-depth interviews
conducted by the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)
with six victims of slavery in 2015 uncovered multiple abusive
fishing companies in a town where corrupt officials continue
to operate with impunity, trafficking networks remain
unbroken, and men are still forced to fish aboard Kantangboats – trapped in an endless cycle of debt, exploitation,
and abuse.187

South Korea
Reports from media and NGOs cite severe labour abuse
aboard South Korean or South Korean-flagged vessels.
In 2011, abuses were identified aboard a South Koreanflagged ship manned by Indonesian fishers, trawling in thewaters off New Zealand.178 In 2011 and 2012, an investigation
conducted by the Environmental Justice Foundation
uncovered numerous instances of South Korean-flagged
vessels involved in illegal fishing. In two of these cases,
human rights abuses were reported involving fishermen
from Senegal, China, South Korea, Vietnam, and Sierra
Leone. The investigation uncovered child labour involving
crew members as young as 14 years old, with crew forced
to sleep in cramped and unhygienic sleeping quarters andpaid in trash fish instead of cash.179

TaiwanFishers who were interviewed by Greenpeace in 2014 and2015 at ports in Taiwan and Fiji described regularly not being
paid by their agent or captain, being debt bonded, receivingvery low pay rates, having their pay heavily reduced by
exorbitant fees, and living in horrific conditions.180 Researchby the IOM found that the majority of Indonesian fishermen
victims of trafficking assisted by IOM Indonesia between
2011 to 2015 worked on Taiwanese fishing vessels.181 In 2014,
a media article reported exploitation in Taiwan’s fishingindustry. An interviewed worker described that he wasforced to work almost 24 hours a day and did not get paid afull salary. Other workers were allegedly not given enoughfood and during two years at sea, the boat reached port justonce as transport boats normally took the catch to land.182

Rice
India
There is evidence of some cases of modern slavery inIndia’s rice industry. An Indian rice mill owner was convictedof holding multiple families inside the mill, initially binding
them with debt through advances and locking the facilities
and denying workers permission to leave.188 In anotherinstance, the International Justice Mission Chennai helped
the government rescue 17 children, women, and men fromforced labour. They had been forced to work 12-hour days
and lived inside a rice mill in Kancheepuram, trapped forat least five years and were forced to transplant paddy.189
A media article reported of a couple celebrating freedom
after 22 years of bonded labour at a rice mill factoryin Punjab.190

Appendices237

MyanmarPeru

A 2014 report on human rights abuses in Myanmar since the2012 ceasefire notes that although it has decreased, forced
labour, often imposed by the army, still exists in Myanmar.
The head of a village who was interviewed as part of theresearch reported that people in his village had to perform
forced labour every year. This included ploughing, sowing
rice, reaping the paddy, and then collecting the cut paddy
in the storage place.191 Other research conducted over a sixmonth period from November 2011 to May 2012 observed
forced labour practices, mostly exacted by the army, inNorthern Arakan/Rakhine State of Myanmar. A decrease inforced labour was found in Central and North Maungdaw.
Some of the interviewees reported being forced to supply
rice to the army camp in their areas.192 The ILO maintains
together with the Government of the Union of Myanmar aforced labour complaint mechanism that gives Myanmar
residents the opportunity to confidentially report cases offorced labour.193 Although reductions in the use of forced
labour have been recorded since 2011 and particularly
since the commencement of the peace negotiations,194 thesituation in Myanmar is currently difficult to determine given
the violence against Rohingya refugees, which has createdthe world’s fastest growing refugee crisis.195

According to the UN Universal Period Review on Peru,
the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women highlighted in a 2017 report that it wasconcerned about trafficking of adolescent girls for sexualor labour exploitation, particularly in Peru’s mining andlogging industries.201 Research carried out during 2014
studied the role of teenage labour in the timber industry of
one of Peru’s main timber producing regions, the Ucayali
region. The study shows that out of a sample of 27 maleteenagers aged between 15 and 17 years old, three met
the ILO criteria for forced labour and reported having
been trafficked.202 Fieldwork carried out in the same
region in 2011 examines commercial sexual exploitationof children and teenagers in the wood mills and river portsof the city of Pucallpa, where the timber industry is one of
the main economic activities. The paper finds that women
generally act as pimps for children and teenagers, andin many cases they are either blood-kin to the victims ortheir “godmothers.”203

TimberVerité carried out research on the presence of indicatorsof forced labour in the production of brazil nuts in Bolivia
between 2009 to 2010. The research was based on surveys
and found that respondents working in the production ofbrazil nuts reported multiple indicators of forced labour. This
included being denied leave, being confined in inaccessible
places, experiencing death threats and/or physical abuseagainst themselves or family member, who said they wanted
to leave, induced indebtedness, being deceived about thetype of work they would be doing, and withholding of wages
or identity documents.204

BrazilIn 2017, Brazilian NGO Repórter Brasil documented therescue of men working in a logging camp in the Brazilian
state of Pará who were at risk of fatal accidents andexperiencing slave labour conditions. It is reported thatmany likely remain in other camps scattered throughout
the Brazilian rainforest.196 Another investigation by Repórter
Brasil further alleged that US-based companies boughttimber from Brazilian traders that sourced forest products
from several sawmills in the Amazon where workers
toiled under conditions of modern slavery.197 An Aljazeera
article documents the stories of multiple individuals who
were previously enslaved on a farm in the Para region ofBrazil where they were forced to deforest land for timber
production. The workers were not paid and were told they
had a debt to their masters they would have to repay.198

North Korea
Human Rights Watch reported that North Korea’s politicalprison camps are characterized by systematic abuse inwhich political prisoners face backbreaking forced labour,
including in logging.199 Similar information can be found in
the report of the UN Human Rights Council from 2014, whichfound that North Koreans forcibly repatriated from China areoften sent to holding facilities. There, adults were forced towork hard for 10 hours a day in brick laying, timber cutting,and farming. If they did not fulfil their daily work quota they
had to work even longer hours.200

Brazil nuts/chestnuts
Bolivia

Cocoa
Côte d’Ivoire
Surveys conducted by the Walk Free Foundation and
Tulane University in Côte d’Ivoire in 2017 identified casesof modern slavery among adults and children working
in cocoa agriculture, between 2013-2017 (rate of forced
labour for adults was 4.2/1000 adults working in medium
and high growing regions; for children the rate was 3.1/1000
children working in medium to high growing regions). To
provide some context, the cocoa sector of Côte d’Ivoire
has long faced allegations of child labour and hazardous
child work. Research conducted by Tulane University during
the 2013/2014 harvest season found that almost 2.3 million
children between 5 and 17 years of age were working incocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. Of thosechildren, approximately 2.1 million were in child labour,
including 2 million in hazardous work.205 An earlier study
conducted in 2008/2009, also by Tulane University, foundthat just over seven percent of the interviewed children
in Côte d’Ivoire and just over five percent of the children

238

Global Slavery Index 2018

interviewed in Ghana reported they were forced to perform
work in cocoa agriculture. The majority of these children
indicated that a parent or other relative had forced them
to work.206 The same study documented fewer than 10
cases of potential forced adult labour in cocoa agriculture
in both countries.207 The Fair Labour Association conducted
13 unannounced independent external monitoring visits
to four cooperatives in Côte d’Ivoire supplying to Nestlé
via the Nestlé Cocoa Plan. One case of forced labour was
revealed as well as 31 young workers between the age of
15 and 18.208 According to media, police in Côte d’Ivoire
freed 48 child slaves in raids on plantations in the country’s
Western cocoa belt and arrested 22 people accused oftrafficking or exploiting children.209

GhanaSurveys conducted by the Walk Free Foundation and
Tulane University in Ghana in 2017 identified cases ofmodern slavery among adults and children working incocoa agriculture, between 2013-2017 (rate of forced labour
for adults was 3.3/1000 adults working in medium and highgrowing regions; for children the rate was 20/1000 children
working in medium to high growing regions). While no otherrecent studies have focused on forced labour in the cocoa
industry, it should be noted that hazardous child labour has
been found to be common in the cocoa sector in Ghana.
There have also been instances of trafficking of children
to cocoa growing areas in Ghana.210 Research conductedby Tulane University during the 2013/2014 harvest season
found that almost 2.3 million children between 5 and 17
years of age were working in cocoa production in Côte
d’Ivoire and Ghana. Of those children, approximately 2.1
million were in child labour, including 2 million in hazardous
work.211 An earlier study conducted in 2008/2009, also
by Tulane University, found that just over seven percentof the interviewed children in Côte d’Ivoire and just over
five percent of the children interviewed in Ghana reported
they were forced to perform work in cocoa agriculture. The
majority of these children indicated that a parent or otherrelative had forced them to work.212

Diamonds
AngolaDiamond extraction in Angola has over the past decades
been linked to torture, murder, and forced displacement,
and relies on both child labour and forced labour. Research
published in 2016 suggests that undocumented migrantchildren from the Democratic Republic of the Congoenter Angola to work in diamond-mining districts andexperience conditions of forced labour or commercial
sexual exploitation in mining camps.213

Electronics – laptops, computers
and mobile phones
China
A 2015 report based on expert interviews and interviews
with interns and workers identifies forced labour ininternship programs at electronic factories in China.
Chinese students are sent to electronics factories under thepretence of “internships” during their university holidays tobe able to get their university degree.214 In 2012, China Labor
Watch reported children and students being exploited at
an electronics factory supplying to Samsung. The abuses
included underpayment, excessive working hours, illegalsalary deductions, and not giving employees a copy of theirwork contract. Child workers had to carry out hazardous
tasks resulting in injury.215 Another investigative report
reveals some instances of exploitation and forced labour atsome of Apple’s largest suppliers. Major violations included
poor living and working conditions, wage deductions,working overtime without compensation, and withholdingof identity documents.216

Malaysia
In 2014, Verité conducted interviews with 501 workers inmore than 100 electronics factories throughout Malaysia
and found that 28 percent of the workers were in forced
labour. Among foreign workers alone, 32 percent werein forced labour. The forced labour experiences wereusually linked to recruitment fees that workers had to
pay to get a job. Seventy-seven percent of workers who
were charged fees had to borrow money in order to
pay them. Other abuses experienced by workers werepassport retention, restriction of freedom of movement,
being unable to leave their employer before the end of
their work contracts, and poor living conditions.217 Anothercase study by Verité confirms those findings on exploitative
practices in Malaysia’s electronics sector.218 According to anews report, Samsung and Panasonic, two of the world’s
leading electronics brands, are also facing allegations thatworkers in their supply chains are being exploited andunderpaid in Malaysia. Both have launched investigations
into allegations of abuse made by Nepalese workers who
said they had been deceived about pay, had their passports
confiscated, and had been told that they would have to pay
extensive fines if they wanted to return to Nepal before theend of their contract.219

Appendices

A young Rohingya refugee sits at the site of a destroyed camp in New Delhi
in April, 2018, following a fire that broke out at their camp that left around
200 people homeless. No casualties were reported. The refugees living in
New Delhi have fled persecution in Myanmar, with their numbers increasing
following a brutal crackdown starting in September 2017 that saw hundredsof thousands pouring into neighbouring Bangladesh.
Photo credit: Money Sharma/AFP/Getty Images

239

240

Global Slavery Index 2018

APPENDIX 4:

Methodology for assessing vulnerability to modern slavery in fisheries

Background
Reports of modern slavery in marine fisheries indicate aneed to properly assess the scale of the issue globally.
Given most countries around the world are involved inmarine fishing, a clearer understanding of the risk factors
associated with vulnerability to modern slavery in fisheries
is required to effectively allocate resources to research andremedy in those countries most at risk.
Joint research undertaken by researchers from the Sea
Around Us at the University of Western Australia and the
University of British Columbia, and the Walk Free Foundation
has sought to identify those characteristics which moststrongly suggest modern slavery aboard fishing vessels.
The goal was to develop a risk model that indicates where
undetected modern slavery issues in the global fishingindustry may exist. The research methodology and results
are the subject of a forthcoming peer reviewed paper. 220
In summary, the research sought to use statistical testing tounderstand the relationship between data on prevalenceof modern slavery and data on fisheries governance andperformance sourced from the Sea Around Us.221 The
analysis was limited to the 20 largest fishing countries,
which collectively land 80 percent of the world’s fisheries
catch. The analysis was based on the prevalence datafrom the 2016 Global Slavery Index222, and media andNGO reports of slavery incidents in fisheries, while thefisheries sector data were derived from the Sea Around
Us project and other key sources223. The analysis identified
six key characteristics of the fisheries sector that predictvulnerability to forced labour at a national level:
1 / The percentage of national catch caught outside a
country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)224 with higher
values indicating greater vulnerability.
2 / The mean distance (km) from a fishing country to thelocation of catch, calculated at a resolution of 0.25 degree
and weighted by tonnes caught in each cell,225 withgreater distances indicating greater vulnerability.
3 / The percentage of harmful subsidies as a percentage ofthe total (2009) landed value of the fishery.226 Harmful
subsidies distort the market by, for instance, reducing

fuel costs or increasing fishing capacity and thus
support fishing even when it is uneconomical, withhigher values indicating greater vulnerability.
4 / Per capita GDP based on purchasing power parity in2016 US$227 as an indicator of relative national wealthwith higher values indicating lower vulnerability.
5 / The value of the fishery per fisher (US$) as an indicatorof the average return to fishers within the sector. We
averaged the value of reported industrial fisheries catch
between 2005-2014228 and divided this number by theestimated number of individuals employed in industrial
fisheries in 2003 as more recent data were unavailable,with higher values indicating lower vulnerability.
6 / The percentage of unreported fish catch divided by the
total of all catch, reported and unreported, for industrial
fishing as an indicator of governance and effective
fisheries management, with higher values indicating
greater vulnerability.
These six characteristics reflect two major sets of drivers:»» National Fisheries Policy that determines the degree
to which fisheries focus on distant waters vs national
EEZs and the degree to which countries subsidize
their fisheries, a typical requirement of distant water
fleets. This driver reflects the first three characteristics
that drive vulnerability to forced labour.
»» Wealth and Institutional Capacity that determines
the degree to which a country has the resources tomaintain appropriate working conditions and reporton fishing activity. This is reflected in national GDP,value of the fisheries, and the degree to whichcountries accurately report on their fish catch. Thisdriver reflects the latter three characteristics that drive
vulnerability to forced labour.

Appendices

241

Assessing vulnerability to modern slavery at sea
It is reasonable to assume that these six risk factors are
relevant, not just for the top 20 fishing nations but for all
fishing nations. In other words, an examination of these risk
factors may point us to areas of risk that may otherwise becompletely out of sight. To enable a broader examinationof this issue, researchers at the University of Western
Australia used the results from the analysis describedabove to model Risk of Modern Slavery at Sea for all fishingcountries assessed in the Global Slavery Index 2016. The
six risk factors identified can be explained in terms of two

dimensions which drive vulnerability to modern slavery ina country’s fishing industry: first, National Fisheries Policy
and second, Wealth and Institutional Capacity.
For each of the six characteristics identified in the initial
analysis described above, a category was assigned to eachcountry based on the country’s value for that characteristic.
For instance, where the percentage of fishing outside a
country’s EEZ was less than five percent, a value of “1”
was assigned. For all six characteristics, vulnerability withrespect to forced labour increases from “1” to “4”.

TABLE 1
Parameters used to determine a country’s rating for each of the six characteristics
CategoryFISHERY CHARACTERISTIC

1

2

3

4

1

Outside EEZ (%)

< 5%

5-29%

30-69%> 70%

2

Distance to fishing grounds (km)< 150

150-500

500-1300> 13003

Harmful subsidies (%)

< 1%

1-5%

6-20%

> 20%

4

Per capita GDP (US$)> $50,000$17,000-$49,000$7,000-$16,999< $7,000

5

Value per fisher (US$)> $25,000$4,000-$25,000$1,000-$3,999< $1,000

6

Unreported catch (%)

0%

1-15%

16-40%> 40%

These generated six categorical values for each country.
We then took the average values of the three characteristics
associated with National Fisheries Policy, and Wealth andInstitutional Capacity. As the six characteristics have similar
influence in the original analysis, their categorical values
did not have to be weighted when calculating the averagefor each driver.

The average values for National Fisheries Policy, and Wealthand Institutional Capacity were then ranked from lowest to
highest, representing low to high vulnerability respectively.
Countries were assigned traffic light colours of green(< 2.00), orange (2.00 - 2.99) and red (3.00 - 4.00). These
traffic lights represent low, moderate, and high vulnerability
to forced labour in the global fishing sector. The results are
in Table 1 of Modern slavery in the fishing industry sectionof this report.

242

Global Slavery Index 2018

09 ENDNOTESAbout the Index

244

Essays244

Global Findings

245

Spotlight on Sector

248

Regional Findings

250

Importing Risk

251

Appendices255

Trafficked brides of Haryana, India. Ghausia Khan, a survivor ofbride trafficking, is a member of the district legal aid authority in
Mewat, Haryana. Khan works for Empower People, an NGO that
deals with trafficking cases and helps women in distress to findlawyers and provides them with legal information, and at times,
monetary assistance. In this image, taken in March 2014, Khanshows photos of trafficked brides, which are known locally as Paroor Molki (means one who has a price). These are pejorative labels
in Haryana, Punjab and western Uttar Pradesh. The women, after
being promised marriage, find themselves in places like Mewat
where traffickers sell them repeatedly to local men. Cut off fromtheir native states, they are often confined and forced to work as
bonded labour or pushed into forced marriage or sex work.
Photo credit: Subrata Biswas/ Hindustan Times via Getty Images

Endnotes

243

244

Global Slavery Index 2018

2
Analyses were conducted by Gallup, Inc. and Walk Free
Foudnation and are described in full in a forthcoming paper: Diego-Rosell P &Joudo Larsen J (forthcoming), Modelling the risk of modern slavery.

Highlights
Essays1
International Labour Office (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation 2017,
Methodology of the global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour andforced marriage, ILO. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forcedlabour/ publications/WCMS_586127/lang--en/index.htm. [7 Feb 2018].

2

1
For more information, please see: National Survivor Network.
Available from: http://nationalsurvivornetwork.org/ [22 February 2018].

India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, and theRussia.

Tickler, D, Bryant, K, David, F, Forrest, J A, Gordon, E, Joudo
Larsen, J, Meeuwig, J, Oh, B, Pauly, D, Sumaila, U R & Zeller, D 2018, Modern
slavery facilitates overfishing in global fisheries, [Unpublished manuscript,
undergoing review for publication].
3

2
For more information, please see: Utthan. Available from: http://
www.sanjogindia.org/programmes/utthan/ [22 February 2018].

About the Index
3
For more information, please see: Survivor Alliance. Available
from: www.survivoralliance.org [22 February 2018].

1
International Labour Office (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation 2017,
Methodology of the global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour andforced marriage, ILO. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forcedlabour/ publications/WCMS_586127/lang--en/index.htm. [4 March 2018].

Endnotes

For more information, please see: Rights Lab, University of
Nottingham. Available from: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/world/beacons/
rights-lab/ [22 February 2018].

4

12

245

As above, p. 87.

Bryant, K & Joudo, B [Forthcoming], What works? Lessons learned
from interventions against forced and early marriage, Walk Free Foundation.

13

5
International Labour Organization (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation
2017, Methodology of the global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labourand forced marriage, ILO. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/
forced-labour/ publications/WCMS_586127/lang--en/index.htm. [22 February2018].
14
Bailey C n.d., Her freedom, her voice: Insights from the Freedom
Fund’s work with women and girls, The Freedom Fund. Available from: http://
freedomfund.org/wp-content/uploads/FF_WOMENANDGIRLS.pdf. [19 March
2018]

15
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, 2018 Message by UN
Secretary-General António Guterres. Available from: http://www.un.org/en/
events/womensday/sgmessage.shtml. [28 March 2018].

6
Hyland, K 2016, ‘Britain must address the root causes of sex
trafficking from Nigeria to Europe,’ The Guardian, 12 August. Available from:https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/aug/12/britain-mustaddress-root-causes-sex-trafficking-nigeria-to-europe. [15 February 2018].
Attorney-General's Department, Human Trafficking, Australian Government.
Available from: https://www.ag.gov.au/CrimeAndCorruption/HumanTrafficking/Pages/default.aspx. [2 February 2018].

‘Libya migrants: Emergency evacuation operation agreed’ 2017,
BBC News, 17 November. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/worldafrica-42179434. [28 March 2018].

16

17International Organization for Migration 2018, Libya’s Migrant
Report Round 17 January – February 2018 Flow Monitoring. Available from:http://www.globaldtm.info/libya/. [28 March 2018].

Kafeero, S 2017, ‘How girls are trafficked to Middle East
through Kenya,’ Daily Monitor, 8 January. Available from: http://www.monitor.
co.ug/News/National/How-girls-are-trafficked-to-Middle-East-throughKenya/688334-3509272-nd1yhr/index.html. [15 February 2018].

7‘Thailand: Mass Graves of Rohingya Found in Trafficking Camp’
2015, Human Rights Watch, 1 May. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/
news/2015/05/01/thailand-mass-graves-rohingya-found-trafficking-camp. [28March 2018].

18

8
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 2017,
Trafficking in Persons Report: Belize Country Narrative, U.S. Departmentof State, p. 66. Available from: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/271341.pdf. [31 January 2018].
19‘UN warns of trafficking, sexual abuse in shadow of Rohingya
refugee crisis’ 2017, UN News, 17 November. Available from: https://news.
un.org/en/story/2017/11/636002-un-warns-trafficking-sexual-abuse-shadowrohingya-refugee-crisis. [28 March 2018].
9
UN Women 2018, Turning promises into action: gender equality
in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, pp. 20-21. Available from:www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2018/sdg-report-gender-equality-in-the-2030-agenda-forsustainable-development-2018-en.pdf?la=en&vs=5653. [19 March 2018].

1020
United Nations Security Council 2017, Statement by the
President of the UN Security Council, 6 November. Available from: http://
www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_prst_2017_22.pdf. [4 April 2018].

As above, p. 108.

See for example: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularyand Fire & Rescue Services 2017, Stolen freedom: the policing response
to modern slavery and human trafficking. Available from https://www.
justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/stolen-freedom-thepolicing-response-to-modern-slavery-and-human-trafficking.pdf. [28 March

21

11

As above, p. 101.

246

Global Slavery Index 20182018].

22
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner(OHCHR) 2018, 37th session of the Human Rights Council, Opening
statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al
Hussein, 26 February. Available from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/
Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22702&LangID=E. [28 March 2018].

be colloquially referred to as “organ trafficking.” This might encompass, forexample, a whole range of illegal activities that aim to commercialise humanorgans and tissues for the purpose of transplantation, including transplant
tourism, where patients travel abroad seeking an (illegal) transplant witha paid donor, and trafficking in organs, tissues and cells, which refers tocommercial transactions with human body parts that have been removed
from living or deceased persons.

6
Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation 2017,
Organ Donation and Transplantation Activities: 2015 Report, p. 9. Available
from: http://www.transplant-observatory.org/organ-donation-transplantationactivities-2015-report-2/. [3 April 2018].

Global Findings
As cited in: May, C 2017, Transnational Crime and the Developing
World, Global Financial Integrity. Available from: http://www.gfintegrity.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Transnational_Crime-final.pdf. [3 April 2018].
See also: Campbell, D & Davison, N 2012, ‘Illegal kidney trade booms as neworgan is 'sold every hour,'’ The Guardian, 27 May. Available from: https://www.
theguardian.com/world/2012/may/27/kidney-trade-illegal-operations-who. [3April 2018].

7

1International Labour Office (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation 2017,
Methodology of the global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour andforced marriage, ILO. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forcedlabour/ publications/WCMS_586127/lang--en/index.htm. [7 February 2018].

2
Only two national surveys were undertaken in the Arab States,
and none in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, despite theincidence of forced labour reported by different sources in such sectors
as domestic work and construction in the GCC countries. The regional
estimate for Arab States is therefore built mainly from respondents who wereinterviewed in countries outside the Arab States who reported about theirforced labour situation while working in that region. Further, measurement offorced marriage among residents of countries within the region is particularly
problematic where there are no surveys, and it was not possible to survey
in countries that are experiencing profound and current conflict, notably
in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya. Taken together, these gaps point to asignificant underestimate of the extent of modern slavery in this region.

8
May, C 2017, Transnational Crime and the Developing World,
Global Financial Integrity, p. 29. Available from: http://www.gfintegrity.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Transnational_Crime-final.pdf. [3 April 2018].

9
As above. The UNODC 2016 Global Report on Trafficking in
Persons further notes that “At least 10 countries have reported trafficking forthe removal of organs.” (p. 8). Figure 8 on p. 27 of the same report shows
the share of identified cases of trafficking for organ removal: United Nations
Office on Drug and Crime 2016, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons
2016. Available from: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/
glotip/2016_Global_Report_on_Trafficking_in_Persons.pdf. [3 April 2018].

3
International Labour Office (ILO) 2015, ILO Global estimates of
migrant workers and migrant domestic workers: results and methodology,
ILO. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/--dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_436343.pdf. [7 February 2018].
10International Organization for Migration 2018, Flow Monitoring
Survey: The Human Trafficking and Other Exploitative Practices Indication
Survey. Available from: https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/dtm/
Mediterranean_DTM_201801.pdf. [3 April 2018].

ILO Convention No.182 defines forced or compulsory recruitmentof children for use in armed conflict as a worst form of child labour. The
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the
Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict prohibits all recruitment –voluntary or compulsory – of children under 18 years by armed forces andgroups. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court makes it a war
crime to conscript or enlist children under the age of 15 years or use them toparticipate actively in hostilities.

4

5
While not exhaustive, the UN Trafficking Protocol specificallyrefers to the crime of trafficking a person for the purpose of removal oforgans (Article 3 UN Trafficking Protocol). While not the only way that organ
removal could become relevant to the broader topic of modern slavery, theterm human trafficking for organ removal is a narrower concept that might

11
Directorate-General for External Policies 2015, Trafficking
in human organs, European Parliament, p.25. Available from: http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/549055/EXPO_STU(2015)549055_EN.pdf. [3 April 2018].

12

As above.

Endnotes

247

view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/37/47&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC. [3 April 2018].
Cholia, A 2009, ‘Illegal Organ Trafficking Poses A Global
Problem,’ Huffington Post, 24 August. Available from: https://www.
huffingtonpost.com/entry/illegal-organ-trafficking_n_244686.html. [3 April
2018].

13

22
O'Neil, S & van Broeckhoven, K (eds.) 2018, Cradled by Conflict:Child Involvement with Armed Groups in Contemporary Conflict, United
Nations University, pp. 116-128.

14
As above. Cohen, L 2003, ‘Where it Hurts: Indian Material for
an Ethics of Organ Transplantation’, Zygon, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 663-688.

15
Scheper-Hughes, N 2009, ‘Prime numbers: Organs Without
Borders’, Foreign Policy, 21 October. Available from: http://foreignpolicy.
com/2009/10/21/organs-without-borders/. [4 April 2018].

23
United Nations Secretary-General 2017, Children and armed
conflict: Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, General Assembly
Security Council, 24 August, p. 2. Available from: https://reliefweb.int/sites/
reliefweb.int/files/resources/N1726811.pdf. [3 April 2018].

24

Shimazono, Y n.d., The state of the international organ trade:a provisional picture based on integration of available information, World
Health Organization Bulletin. Available from: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/12/06-039370/en/. [4 April 2018].

As above, pp. 4-31.

16

17
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General
for Children and Armed Conflict 2018, Annual report of the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict,
United Nations, 8 January, pp. 6-7. Available from: http://www.un.org/ga/
search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/37/47&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC. [3 April
2018].

Brett, R & McCallin, M 1996, Children: the Invisible Soldiers, Save
the Children, Stockholm, p. 32.

25
Anti-Slavery International, Thematic report on slavery in
Mauritania for the UN Human Rights Committee, 107th session, 11–28 March
2013. Adoption of the List of Issues on the initial report of Mauritania, AntiSlavery International. Available from: http://bit.ly/Za4MyV. [3 April 2018].

26
Marlin, R & Mathewson S 2015, Enforcing Mauritania’s AntiSlavery Legislation: The Continued Failure of the Justice System to Prevent,Protect and Punish, Minority Rights Group International and Anti-Slavery
International, pp. 5-6.

18

27
International Labour Organization 2017, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13100:0::NO::P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3298344,103075,Mauritania,2016. [20 June 2017].

28

International Labour Organization & Walk Free Foundation 2017,
Methodology of the global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour andforced marriage, p. 84. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forcedlabour/ publications/WCMS_586127/lang--en/index.htm. [7 February 2018].
19

20
O'Neil, S & van Broeckhoven, K (eds.) 2018, Cradled by Conflict:Child Involvement with Armed Groups in Contemporary Conflict, United
Nations University, p. 43.

29
UNHCR, IOM & OCHA 2017, Joint statement on the Rohingya
refugee crisis, UNHCR. Available from: http://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/
press/2017/10/59e4c17e5/joint-statement-rohingya-refugee-crisis.html. [22Feb 2018].

30

Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General
for Children and Armed Conflict 2018, Annual report of the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict,
United Nations, 8 January, p. 3. Available from: http://www.un.org/ga/search/

21

Outside the exceptions established by the ILO supervisory

bodies.

India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, and Russia.

248

Global Slavery Index 201831
Estimates for the region are likely to significantly underestimate
the scale of modern slavery due to substantial gaps in the available data.

38
In 2016, we reported 121 had criminalised trafficking, but this is
not directly comparable to 2018. In 2017, we conducted a thorough review
of our assessment of legislation and included more language experts in ourreview group. As a result of this, certain legislation was deemed not to meet
the UN Trafficking Protocol due to requiring movement across borders or
excluding the ‘means’ by which someone is trafficked from the definition.
These countries were excluded from meeting this indicator in 2018.

Gallup Inc. is an international research-based company, http://
www.gallup.com/home.aspx.

32

33
Joudo Larsen, J & Diego-Rosell, P 2017, Using surveys
to measure modern slavery, 2018 Insight Series (2), Walk Free
Foundation. Available from: https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/
walkfreefoundation.org-assets/content/uploads/2017/12/01171017/02-InsightSeries-171201_FNL.pdf. [2 February 2018].

Breuker, R & van Gardingen, I, [Forthcoming], Pervasive, Punitive,
and Predetermined: Understanding Modern Slavery in North Korea.

34

35
One of the 50 respondents reported that they did not experience
forced labour and that this was as a consequence of their employment asa teacher as well as falling within a high income bracket. The respondent
reported that concessions are granted to teachers due to the well-regarded
professional status.

39

Ninety-nine countries in 2018 as opposed to 96 in 2016.

40

Available from: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/.

41
Commonwealth countries included are Antigua and Barbuda,
Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Kiribati, Malta, Nauru, Saint Lucia,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles,
Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Palau (not a Commonwealthcountry) is also included for the first time, in an effort to ensure complete
coverage of the Pacific.

Identified using the 2016 Fragile States Index, where thosecountries that scored 10.0 on the Security Apparatus indicator were excluded.
See http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/2016/06/27/fragile-states-index-2016-annualreport/.

42

43
Guide to Sustainable Purchases, Decent Work, [in Dutch].
Available from: http://gidsvoorduurzameaankopen.be/nl/sociale-aspecten/
fatsoenlijk-werk. [29 May 2017].

In North Korea, being unemployed can lead quickly to being
sent to a labour camp. To avoid this, it is critical to be registered with a job
number. People without jobs register as so-called “8/3 workers,” a term that isderived from an August 3, 1984 directive by Kim Il Sung to recycle discarded
materials to produce new products. Today it refers to employees who pay asteep monthly sum to an officially recognised workplace to be registered as
an employee there, while working a different job (such as market trader) toearn the money to make a living and to pay their official employer.

36

44
Guide to Sustainable Purchases, Ethical Responsibility (2017), [inDutch]. Available from: http://gidsvoorduurzameaankopen.be/nl/studies-enprojecten/ethische-verantwoordelijkheid-2017. [24 May 2017].

One of the 50 respondents reported that they did not experience
forced labour and that this was as a consequence of their employment asa teacher as well as falling within a high income bracket. The respondent
reported that concessions are granted to teachers due to the well-regarded
professional status.

37

45
Bulletin Officiel 2016, Law 27-14 of 25 August 2016 to Combat the
Trafficking in Human Beings, International Labour Organization, [in French].
Available from: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=fr&p_
isn=103357&p_count=3&p_classification=03. [7 February 2018].

Loidici 2016, The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, International
Labour Organization, [in French]. Available from: https://www.loidici.com/
Traitepersonnes/TraitePersonnesrepression.php. [26 July 2017].

46

Endnotes

Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, News, Government ofChile, [in Spanish]. Available from: http://tratadepersonas.subinterior.gov.cl/. [2March 2017].
47

48
Public Security Division: Undersecretary of the Interior 2016,
Guide to Detection and Derivation for Victims of Trafficking in Persons,
Government of Chile, [in Spanish]. Available from: http://tratadepersonas.
subinterior.gov.cl/media/2016/08/Gu%C3%ADa-de-detecci%C3%B3n-yderivaci%C3%B3n-de-v%C3%ADctimas-de-trata-de-personas.pdf. [3 March2017].

49
Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, Intersectorial Table,
Government of Chile, [in Spanish]. Available from: http://tratadepersonas.
subinterior.gov.cl/mesa-intersectorial/. [3 March 2017].

European Commission 2014, Non-financial reporting directive– transposition status. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/non-financial-reporting-directive-transposition-status_en. [7 February 2018].

50

Walk Free Foundation 2016, Harnessing the Power of Business
to End Modern Slavery. Available from: http://walkfreefoundation.org-assets.
s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/content/uploads/2016/12/01213809/
Harnessing-the-power-of-business-to-end-modern-slavery-20161130.pdf. [7February 2018].

51

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 2017, Forced Labor,
Government of the United States. Available from: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/
trade-community/programs-outreach/convict-importations. [10 January 2018].
52

53
Eur-Lex Access to European Law 2018, Directive 2014/24/
EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014
on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC Text with
EEA relevance. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024. [7 February 2017].

Eur-Lex Access to European Law 2018, National transposition
measures communicated by the Member States concerning: Directive
2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC Text with
EEA relevance. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
NIM/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024. [7 February 2018].

54

10 cases of arrears of migrant workers' wages and plans to carry out acomprehensive self-examination work, Ministry of Human Resources andSocial Services, 2 March, in Chinese. Available from: http://www.mohrss.gov.
cn/ldjcj/LDJCJgongzuodongtai/201703/t20170302_267164.html. [20 June2017].

OECD 2017, Government at a Glance 2017, OECD iLibrary.
Available from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-aglance-2017/general-government-procurement-spending-as-a-percentage-ofgdp-and-total-government-expenditures-2007-2009-and-2015_gov_glance2017-graph119-en. [28 January 2018].

56

Bali Process n.d., About the Bali Process. Available from: http://
www.baliprocess.net/. [29 January 2018].

57

58
International Labour Organization 2017, Ratifications of P029
- Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930. Available from:http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_
INSTRUMENT_ID:3174672. [29 January 2018].

59
Cross, G 2016, ‘Strong case for more video recording of evidencein Hong Kong courts to protect the vulnerable,’ South China Morning Post, 24
October. Available from: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/
article/2039577/strong-case-more-video-recording-evidence-hong-kongcourts. [19 April 2017].

60
2017, ‘RPTRA in Jatinegara opens counseling room,’ The
Jakarta Post, 31 March. Available from: http://www.thejakartapost.com/
news/2017/03/31/rptra-in-jati-negara-opens-counseling-room.html. [12 May
2017].

Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings(GRETA) 2016, Report concerning the implementation of the Council ofEurope Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by
Albania. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/168065bf87. [15 February 2017].
61

62
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 2016,
Trafficking in Persons Report: Pakistan Country Narrative, United States
Department of State. Available from: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2016/258837.htm. [15 March 2017].

Martin, R & Mathewson, S 2015, Enforcing Mauritania's AntiSlavery Legislation: The Continued Failure of the Justice System to Prevent,Protect and Punish, Minority Rights, Anti-Slavery International, Minority Rights

63

55

Xinhua 2017, The General Office of the State Council exposes

249

250

Global Slavery Index 2018

Group International, Society for Threatened Peoples and the Unrepresented
Nations and Peoples Organization, pp. 5-6.

64
International Labour Organization 2017, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13100:0::NO::P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3298344,103075,Mauritania,2016. [20 June 2017].

65
United States Department of State 2016, Nepal 2016
Human Rights Report. Available from: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265756.pdf. [20 December 2017].

66

bodies. ▪ Compulsory prison labour exacted from persons under certain
circumstances, such as punishment for expressing political views, labour
discipline, or peaceful participation in strikes. 5. Compulsory labour for the
purpose of economic development.6. Forced recruitment of children by
governments. Taken from International Labour Organization 2017, Global
Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage. http://www.
ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/
wcms_575479.pdf. [9 February 2018].

69
Rosenberg, M 2017, ‘Washington state sues over $1/day wages
paid to immigrant detainees’, Reuters, September 20. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-strike/washington-state-suesover-1-day-wages-paid-to-immigrant-detainees-idUSKCN1BV2XN. [11 January2018].

Field sources.

67
United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms ofslavery, including its causes and consequences, Urmila Bhoola, 2016, Reportof the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its
causes and consequences - Mission to El Salvador, United Nations Human
Rights Council, Thirty-third Session. Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.
un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/170/23/PDF/G1617023.pdf?OpenElement. [19July 2017].

70
International Labour Organization 2016, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3247143,103154,Belarus,2015. [28 April 2017]

71
International Labour Organization 2017, Direct Request (CEACR) adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13100:0::::P13100_COMMENT_
ID:3299906. [6 November 2017].

For the purpose of the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery,
forced labour imposed by state authorities has been classified in six maincategories: 1. Abuse of conscription, when conscripts are forced to work fortasks which are not of purely military character. 2. Obligation to perform work
beyond normal civic obligations. 3. Abuse of the obligation to participate
in minor communal services, when these services are not in the directinterest of the community and have not benefited from prior consultation of
the members of the said community. 4. Prison labour ▪ Compulsory prison
labour of prisoners in remand or in administrative detention ▪ Compulsory
prison labour exacted for the benefit of private individuals, companies,
or associations outside the exceptions allowed by the ILO supervisory

68

International Labour Organization 2017, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13100:0::::P13100_COMMENT_
ID:3296204. [1 December 2017].

72

Endnotes

73
Jiang, S 2016, ‘Punishment without trial: the past, present andfuture of reeducation through labor in China,’ Peking University Law Journal,
vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45-78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/20517483.2016.1
174436. [1 December 2017].

‘Over 3m people partake in nationwide subbotnik in Belarus,’
2015, Belarus News, 22 April. Available from: http://eng.belta.by/society/view/over-3m-people-partake-in-nationwide-subbotnik-in-belarus-11854-2015. [9January 2018].

251

International Labour Organization 2017, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3297478,102880,Venezuela,%20Bolivarian%20Republic%20of,2016. [1December 2017].

80

74

81
International Labour Organization 2015, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3188569,102595,Colombia,2014. [28 April 2017].

82

75International Labour Organization 2016, Direct Request (CEACR) adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3251099,103466,Burundi,2015. [28 April 2017].

76
International Labour Organization 2016, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3250775,103159,Myanmar,2015. [28 April 2017].

77
International Labour Organization 2017, Direct Request (CEACR) adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3296137,103460,Rwanda,2016. [6 November 2017].

As above.

83
International Labour Organization 2017, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3300490,102955,Madagascar,2016. [30 November 2017].

International Labour Organization 2017, Direct Request (CEACR) adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3279446,103142,Mongolia,2016. [22 December 2017].

84

85International Labour Organization 2017, Observation (CEACR)- adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://
www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13100:0::NO::P13100_
COMMENT_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_
COMMENT_YEAR:3276825,103081,Mali,2016. [1 November 2017]

78
International Labour Organization 2017, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13100:0::NO::P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3297022,103336,Swaziland,2016. [30 November 2017].

In Uzbekistan: International Labour Organization 2017,
Observation (CEAR) – adopted 2016, published 106th session (2017). Available
from: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_
COMMENT_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_
COMMENT_YEAR:3300743,103538,Uzbekistan,2016. [1 December 2017]. In
Turkmenistan: International Labour Organization 2016, Observation (CEAR)– adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016). Available from:http://
www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3253697,103551,Turkmenistan,2015. [28 April 2017].
79

86International Labour Organization 2016, Observation (CEACR) adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016). Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3256806,103282,Eritrea,2015. [28 April 2017].

87

As above.

252

Global Slavery Index 201888
United Nations Support Mission in Libya 2016, “Detained
And Dehumanised” Report On Human Rights Abuses Against Migrants
In Libya, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights. Available from: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/LY/
DetainedAndDehumanised_en.pdf. [25 July 2017].

6
Estimates for the region are likely to significantly underestimate
the scale of modern slavery due to substantial gaps in the available data.

Regional Analysis

International Labour Organization (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation
2017, Methodology: Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labourand Forced Marriage, ILO, p.78. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/
groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_586127.pdf[31 January 2018]71
As noted in the methodology (Appendix 2), the vulnerability
model is based on data collected for a reference period ending on 15 April
2017.

8
Amnesty International 2018, Myanmar: Fresh evidence ofongoing ethnic cleansing as military starves, abducts and robs Rohingya, 7
February. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/02/
myanmar-fresh-evidence-of-ongoing-ethnic-cleansing-as-military-starvesabducts-robs-rohingya/. [1 March 2018].

2
International Labour Organization (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation
2017, Methodology of the global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labourand forced marriage, ILO, p. 78. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/
groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_586127.pdf.
[31 January 2018].

3
Seychelles was included in our assessment of government
responses in 2018, however as this was the first year we collected data forthis country we did not include its rating in the GSI. Data collected can befound in the database at https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/.

Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada,Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
were included in our assessment of government responses in 2018, howeveras this was the first year we collected data for these countries we did notinclude their ratings in the GSI. Data collected can be found in the databaseat https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/.

9“Given the pervasive sexual violence that has marked this andprevious military campaigns against the Rohingya in northern Rakhine State,
the abduction of women and young girls raises serious concerns of rape andsexual slavery.” Amnesty International 2018, Myanmar: Fresh evidence ofongoing ethnic cleansing as military starves, abducts and robs Rohingya, 7
February. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/02/
myanmar-fresh-evidence-of-ongoing-ethnic-cleansing-as-military-starvesabducts-robs-rohingya/. [1 March 2018]. See also: International Organization
for Migration 2017, UN Migration Agency Warns of Trafficking, Labour
Exploitation, Sexual Abuse of Rohingya Refugees, Press Release 14
November. Available from: https://www.iom.int/news/un-migration-agencywarns-trafficking-labour-exploitation-sexual-abuse-rohingya-refugees. [1March 2018].

45International Labour Organization (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation
2017, Methodology: Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labourand Forced Marriage, ILO, p.78. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/
groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_586127.pdf[31 January 2018].

10
Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu,
and Vanuatu were included in our assessment of government responses in
2018, however as this was the first year we collected data for these countries
we did not include their ratings in the GSI. Data collected can be found in the
database at https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/.

11
One of the few examples of a survey covering forced
marriage-related topics is from Kyrgyzstan. According to findings of asurvey undertaken in Kyrgyzstan, almost 4 percent of married women in
the country reported having been kidnapped by their husbands without aprior understanding. A separate question posed to all respondents in thesame survey showed that a large majority of the population is somewhat orvery worried that “a daughter / grand-daughter / sister will be kidnappedby someone for marriage (bride stealing).” These questions have also
been included in a new ICVS-based survey in Kazakhstan, funded by theEuropean Commission, to be conducted in 2017. See further: van Dijk, J
2016, ‘Illuminating the Dark Figure of Crime: Crime Victimisation Surveys andBeyond,’ Newsletter of the European Society of Criminology. Available from:Endnotes

http://escnewsletter.org/ /2016-3/illuminating-dark-figure-crime-victimisationsurveys-and-beyond. [28 February 2018].

12
See for example, International Labour Organization 2018,
Third-party monitoring of measures against child labour and forced labour
during the 2017 cotton harvest in Uzbekistan. Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/
wcms_617830.pdf. [20 February 2018]. See also: Human Rights Watch &Uzbek -German Forum for Human Rights 2017, 'We Can’t Refuse to Pick
Cotton' Forced and Child Labor Linked to World Bank Group Investments in
Uzbekistan. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/
uzbekistan0617_web_3.pdf [23 October 2017]. See also: Human Rights
Watch 2013, Uzbekistan: Forced Labor Widespread in Cotton Harvest.
Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/25/uzbekistan-forcedlabor-widespread-cotton-harvest. [9 February 2018].

Malta was included in our assessment of government responses
in 2018, however as this was the first year we collected data for this country
we did not include its rating in the GSI. Data collected can be found in the
database at https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/.

253

6
Observatory of Economic Complexity 2016, United States.
Available from: https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/. [11December 2017].

G20 Germany 2017, G20 Leaders´ Declaration: Shaping aninterconnected world, 7/8 July. Available from: https://www.bundesregierung.
de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/2017/07/2017-07-08-abschlusserklaerungg20-eng.pdf;jsessionid=37894E0F4F0E033822BB3B168D1228B4.
s1t1?__blob=publicationFile&v=14. [19 December 2017]. International
Corporate Accountability Roundtable 2017, G20 Progress Report: G20
Leaders Commit to More Sustainable and Inclusive Global Supply Chains—More Work Remains to Be Done, 18 July. Available from: https://www.icar.
ngo/news/2017/7/18/g20-progress-report-g20-leaders-commit-to-moresustainable-and-inclusive-global-supply-chainsmore-work-remains-to-bedone. [17 December 2017].

7

13

8
G20 Germany 2017, G20 Leaders´ Declaration: Shaping aninterconnected world, 7/8 July. Available from: https://www.bundesregierung.
de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/2017/07/2017-07-08-abschlusserklaerung-g20eng.pdf;jsessionid=37894E0F4F0E033822BB3B168D1228B4.s1t1?__
blob=publicationFile&v=14. [19 December 2017].

Thematic Chapter

1This list does not claim to be exhaustive. The data are takenfrom the BACI 2015 dataset (available from: http://www.cepii.fr/cepii/en/bdd_
modele/presentation.asp?id=1). For a detailed methodology of how theseproducts were identified, please see Appendix 3. South Africa was excluded
as it does not report trade data individually but only through the Southern
African Customs Union, which comprises five countries of Southern Africa(South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, and Swaziland). The European
Union was also excluded as much of its trade is already captured in the dataof Germany, Italy, France, and the UK.

2
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
2011, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, United
Nations. Available from: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/
GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf. [13 December 2017].

9
Bureau of International Labor Affairs 2016, List of Goods
Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, United States Department ofLabor. Available from: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/
reports/child-labor/findings/TVPRA_Report2016.pdf. [12 January 2018].

10
In the case of the maritime fishing industry, countries in this list
refer to flag states, i.e. countries where a vessel is registered. Ghana fishingrisk relates to inland fisheries (mainly Lake Volta).

11
The data are taken from the BACI 2015 dataset. Available from:http://www.cepii.fr/cepii/en/bdd_modele/presentation.asp?id=1). [12 January2018].
3
United Nations n.d., Sustainable Development Goal 8. Available
from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg8. [11 January 2018].

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade n.d., The G20, AustralianGovernment. Available from: http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/international-organisations/g20/pages/the-g20.aspx. [11 January 2018].

412International Labour Organization (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation
2017, Global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour and forced marriage,
p.32. Available from: https://www.alliance87.org/global_estimates_of_modern_slavery-forced_labour_and_forced_marriage.pdf. [18 January 2017].

Observatory of Economic Complexity 2015, Where does North
Korea export Coal Briquettes to? (2015). Available from: https://atlas.media.
mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/prk/show/2701/2015/. [6 February2018].

13

Observatory of Economic Complexity 2016, China. Available from:https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/chn/. [11 December 2017].
5

254

Global Slavery Index 201814
Breuker, R & van Gardingen, I [Forthcoming], Pervasive, punitiveand predetermined: Understanding modern slavery in North Korea. KwangJin, K 2016, Gulag, Inc: The Use of Forced Labor in North Korea’s Export
Industries, Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. Available from:https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/KKJ_Gulag_INC_FinalFinal_WEB.pdf. [6February 2018].

17
Statista 2017, World cocoa production by country from 2012/2013
to 2016/2017 (in 1,000 metric tons). Available from: https://www.statista.
com/statistics/263855/cocoa-bean-production-worldwide-by-region/. [15December 2017].

Gross, A S 2017, 'Brazil ordered to pay $5m to workers formerly
enslaved on cattle ranch,' The Guardian, 10 January. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/09/brazil-ordered-topay-5m-to-workers-formerly-enslaved-on-cattle-ranch. [12 January 2018].

18

15
Tickler, D, Bryant, K, David, F, Forrest, J A, Gordon, E, Larsen, J
J, Meeuwig, J, Oh, B, Pauly, D, Sumaila, U R and Zeller, D, Common causes,
shared solutions: The relationship between modern slavery and the race tofish, [undergoing review for publication].

For more details, please refer to the product bibliography in the
Appendix 4.

19
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
2014, Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery,
including its causes and consequences, Gulnara Shahinian: Follow-up
mission to Kazakhstan, United Nations Human Rights Council, Twentyseventh session. Available from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/
RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A_HRC_27_53_Add_2_ENG.doc. [9February 2018]. United Nations Human Rights Committee 2016, Concluding
observations on the second periodic report of Kazakhstan, United Nations.
Available from: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/
Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/KAZ/CO/2&Lang=En. [8 February 2018].

16

20
Amnesty International 2017, Turkmenistan 2016/2017. Available
from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/
turkmenistan/report-turkmenistan/. [9 February 2018]. International Labour

Endnotes

Organization Committee of Experts 2017, Observation (CEACR) – adopted
2016, published 106th ILC session (2017) Abolition of Forced Labour
Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Turkmenistan (Ratification: 1997), International
Labour Organization. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=N
ORMLEXPUB:13100:0::::P13100_COMMENT_ID:3297278. [8 February 2018].

255

certain goods, this loophole permitted imports to continue even if there wasevidence of forced labour in the supply chain for that product. However, thisloophole was closed when former President Obama signed into law H.R. 644– Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 2016, Forced Labor.
Available from: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade-community/programsoutreach/convict-importations. [19 January 2018].

28

Scarborough, I M 2014. Child, Student, and Adult Participationin Tajikistan’s Cotton Harvest: 2013 Annual Assessment. International
Organization for Migration. Available from: http://publications.iom.int/
system/files/pdf/tajikistan_cotton_2013annualassessment_final.pdf. [9February 2018]. Scarborough, I M 2016, Child and forced labour exploitationin Tajikistan's cotton harvest: 2015 annual monitoring report, International
Organization for Migration. Available from: http://www.iom.tj/files/
cottoneng2015.pdf. [20 February 2018].

29

22
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 2017,
Tajikistan Country Narrative, United States Department of State. Available
from: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2017/271295.htm. [20February 2018].

30'UN warns tough North Korea sanctions risk hurting millions inneed of aid,' The Guardian, 11 December 2017. Available from: https://www.
theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/11/north-korea-sanctions-human-rights-tollunited-nations. [6 February 2018].

21

23
Human Rights Watch & Uzbek-German Forum for Human
Rights 2017, 'We Can’t Refuse to Pick Cotton' Forced and Child Labor
Linked to World Bank Group Investments in Uzbekistan. Available from:https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/uzbekistan0617_web_3.
pdf. [23 October 2017]. Human Rights Watch 2013, Uzbekistan: Forced
Labor Widespread in Cotton Harvest. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/
news/2013/01/25/uzbekistan-forced-labor-widespread-cotton-harvest. [9February 2018].

As above.

UN Security Council 2017, Security Council Tightens Sanctions
on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Unanimously Adopting Resolution
2397 (2017), United Nations, 22 December. Available from: https://www.un.org/
press/en/2017/sc13141.doc.htm. [6 February 2017].
31

U.S. Department of the Treasury 2017, Treasury Sanctions
Additional North Korean Officials and Entities in Response to the Regime’s
Serious Human Rights Abuses and Censorship Activities, United States
Government, 26 October. Available from: https://www.treasury.gov/presscenter/press-releases/Pages/sm0191.aspx. [6 February 2018].

32

24
International Labour Organization 2018, Third-party monitoringof measures against child labour and forced labour during the 2017 cotton
harvest in Uzbekistan. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/
public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_617830.pdf. [20February 2018].

33
Cashen, E 2017, 'The impact of economic sanctions,' World
Finance, 20 April. Available from: https://www.worldfinance.com/specialreports/the-impact-of-economic-sanctions. [24 January 2018].
25
Campos, A 2017, 'Suppliers of Lowe’s in the US and Walmart
in Brazil linked to slave labor in the Amazon,' Repórter Brasil, 15 March.
Available from: http://reporterbrasil.org.br/2017/03/suppliers-of-lowes-in-theus-and-walmart-in-brazil-linked-to-slave-labor-in-the-amazon/. [19 January2018].

26
Verité 2014, Forced Labor in the Production of Electronic
Goods in Malaysia: A Comprehensive Study of Scope and Characteristics.
Available from: https://verite.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/
VeriteForcedLaborMalaysianElectronics2014.pdf. [19 January 2017]. Verité
2012, The Electronics Sector in Malaysia: A Case Study in Migrant Workers’
Risk of Forced Labor. Available from: http://www.verite.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/11/ElectronicsMalaysia_MigrantWorkers_WhitePaperFINAL3.
pdf. [19 December 2017].

'UN warns tough North Korea sanctions risk hurting millions inneed of aid,' The Guardian, 11 December 2017. Available from: https://www.
theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/11/north-korea-sanctions-human-rights-tollunited-nations. [6 February 2018].

34

35OECD 2017, Government at a Glance 2017, OECD Publishing.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2017-en. [12 December
2017].

European Commission 2018, Public Procurement. Available
from: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/public-procurement_en. [24January 2018].

36

The law previously had what was known informally as the‘consumptive demand loophole.’ In order to meet US market demand for
27

256

Global Slavery Index 2018

USA Spending 2017, Overview of Awards by FY 20082018. Available from: https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/TextView.
aspx?data=OverviewOfAwardsByFiscalYearTextView. [13 December 2017].

37

Crockett, A, Elgie, O & Wootton, J 2017. Potential amendments to
the UK Modern Slavery Act. Herbert Smith Freehills. Available from: https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/latest-thinking/potential-amendments-to-theuk-modern-slavery-act. [5 February 2018].

46

38
US Government Publishing Office 2012, Executive Order 13627
of September 25, 2012: Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in
Persons in Federal Contracts. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
FR-2012-10-02/pdf/2012-24374.pdf. [13 December 2017].

39
Fragale, R 2017, 'Slavery in Brazil: Bringing back the 'dirty list','Slave Free Trade, 21 September. Available from: https://slavefreetrade.org/
brazil-slavery-dirty-list/. [30 January 2017].

European Commission 2016, Green and Sustainable Public
Procurement, European Union. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/gpp/versus_en.htm. [15 December 2017].

40

41
European Union 2014, Directive 2014/24/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement
and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, EUR-Lex. Available from: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32014L0024. [14 December
2017].

47
German Federal Foreign Office 2016. National Action Plan:
Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
2016-2020. German Government. Available from: https://www.auswaertigesamt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/754770/publicationFile/230425/161221-NAPDL.pdf. [27 November 2017].

48

As above.

49
Federal Ministry of Economic and International Development
n.d., How can I integrate sustainability into the procurement process?,
Sustainability Compass. Available from: http://oeffentlichebeschaffung.
kompass-nachhaltigkeit.de/en/sustainability-in-the-procurement-process/. [27November 2017].

Gillard, J 2013, Further Government Action To Eliminate
Modern Slavery, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, AustralianGovernment. Available from: https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-19141. [6 October 2017].

50

Hansom, D 2016, 'Mandatory exclusions: a new tool to protect
human rights in EU public procurement?' International Learning Lab on Public
Procurement and Human Rights, 28 November. Available from: https://www.
hrprocurementlab.org/blog/mandatory-exclusions-a-new-tool-to-protecthuman-rights-in-eu-public-procurement/. [14 December 2017].

42

Walk Free Foundation 2017, Walk Free Submission to the Joint
Committee on Law Enforcement: Inquiry into Human Trafficking. Available
from: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/
Law_Enforcement/Human_trafficking/Submissions. [5 October 2017].

51

43
European Commission 2016, Supporting social responsibility inthe economy through public procurement, European Union. Available from:http://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/supporting-social-responsibility-economythrough-public-procurement-0_en. [15 December 2017].

44
For more information, please see: Dentons 2016, A few
questions about Implementation of the EU public procurement directives.
Available from: https://www.dentons.com/-/media/pdfs/insights/2016/june/
implementation-of-the-eu-public-procurement-directives.pdf. [15 December
2017].

52
Department of Finance 2017, Commonwealth Procurement Rules:
Achieving value for money, Australian Government. Available from: http://
www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/commonwealth-procurement-rules.pdf.
[6 October 2017].

53

45
Joint Committee on Human Rights 2017, Human Rights andBusiness 2017: promoting responsibility and ensuring accountability - Sixth
Report of Session 2016-17, House of Lords and House of Commons. Available
from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201617/jtselect/jtrights/443/443.
pdf. [8 November 2017].

As above, p. 25.

54
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence andTrade 2017, Hidden in Plain Sight: An inquiry into establishing a Modern
Slavery Act in Australia, Commonwealth of Australia. Available from: http://
parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/024102/toc_pdf/

Endnotes

HiddeninPlainSight.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf. [14 December 2017].

55
Home Office 2017, Transparency in Supply Chains etc.: A
practical guide, Government of the United Kingdom. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/649906/Transparency_in_Supply_Chains_A_Practical_Guide_2017.pdf.
[8 November 2017].

56

257

Duty Of Vigilance Law, 23 February. Available from: https://businesshumanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/French%20Corporate%20
Duty%20of%20Vigilance%20Law%20FAQ.pdf. [17 December 2017].

64
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade2017, Terms of Reference, Parliament of Australia. Available from: http://www.
aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Foreign_Affairs_
Defence_and_Trade/ModernSlavery/Terms_of_Reference. [9 October 2017].

Exchange rate as at 20 February 2018: US$1 = £0.72.
65
The Hon Michael Keenan MP 2017, Proposed new laws to
help end modern slavery. Available from: https://www.ministerjustice.
gov.au/Media/Pages/Proposed-new-laws-to-help-end-modern-slavery-16August-2017.aspx. [9 October 2017].

57
Joint Committee on Human Rights 2017, Human Rights andBusiness 2017: promoting responsibility and ensuring accountability - Sixth
Report of Session 2016-17, House of Lords and House of Commons. Available
from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201617/jtselect/jtrights/443/443.
pdf. [8 November 2017].

58
Becerra, X, The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act.
State of California Department of Justice. Available from: https://oag.ca.gov/
SB657 [17 December 2017]. Harris, K D 2015, The California Transparency
in Supply Chains Act: A Resource Guide, California Department of Justice.
Available from: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/sb657/resourceguide.pdf. [5 February 2017].

59
Respaut, R 2016, 'California surpasses France as world's sixthlargest economy,' Reuters, 18 June. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/
article/us-california-economy/california-surpasses-france-as-worlds-sixthlargest-economy-idUSKCN0Z32K2. [17 December 2017].

66
Orphanage tourism is where tourists visit and volunteer inorphanages. While tourists may be unaware, there are reports that these‘orphanages’ are a money-making exercise, and that often the orphans still
have living parents. There are examples where the children are exploited,
including physical and sexual abuse.

67
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence andTrade 2017, Hidden in Plain Sight: An inquiry into establishing a Modern
Slavery Act in Australia, Commonwealth of Australia. Available from: http://
parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/024102/toc_pdf/
HiddeninPlainSight.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf. [14 December 2017].

68
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights 2018, ALHR welcomes
Government commitment to introduce a Modern Slavery Bill by mid-2018,
February 16. Available from: https://alhr.org.au/alhr-welcomes-modernslavery-bill-by-mid-201/. [20 February 2018].

60
Becerra, X, The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act,
State of California Department of Justice. Available from: https://oag.ca.gov/
SB657. [17 December 2017].
69
International Labour Organization n.d., What Is the Pact for theEradication of Slave Labour? Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/
groups/public/---dgreports/---ilo-washington/documents/genericdocument/
wcms_189835.pdf. [7 November 2017].

61
Aseemblée Nationale, Entreprises : devoir de vigilance desentreprises donneuses d'ordre. Available from: http://www.assembleenationale.fr/14/dossiers/devoir_vigilance_entreprises_donneuses_ordre.asp.
[17 December 2017].
70
Kelly, A 2012, 'Brazil’s ‘dirty list’ names and shames companies
involved in slave labour,' The Guardian, 25 July. Available from: https://www.
theguardian.com/sustainable-business/brazil-dirty-list-names-shames-slavelabour. [12 November 2017].

62
Fasterling, B 2017, 'Vigilance or Compliance? On the New French‘Vigilance’ Law’,' New York University Stern Centre for Business and Human
Rights Blog, 19 June. Available from: https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/blogs/frenchvigiliance-law. [28 November 2017].
71
Appelbaum, R and Lichtenstein, N 2016, Achieving Workers’
Rights in the Global Economy, Cornell University Press, New York.

63

European Coalition of Corporate Justice 2017, French Corporate

258

Global Slavery Index 2018

Rogoz, M 2016, Responses to Demand in the Context ofTrafficking in Human Beings: Regulatory measures from twelve national
contexts. Available from: http://www.demandat.eu/publications/madalinarogoz-et-al-responses-demand-context-trafficking-human-beings-regulatory.
[24 January 2017].

72

73
Fragale, R 2017, 'Slavery in Brazil: Bringing back the 'dirty list','Slave Free Trade, 21 September. Available from: https://slavefreetrade.org/
brazil-slavery-dirty-list/. [30 January 2017].

Douglas, B 2016, 'Brazil: loss of ‘dirty list’ sparks fears of worker
exploitation as Olympics near,' The Guardian, 2 March. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/mar/02/brazil-loss-dirtylist-sparks-fears-worker-exploitation-olympic-games-international-labourorganisation. [15 November 2017].

74

81

As above.

82
Altschuller, S A & Lehr, A K 2017, Proposed Dutch Legislation
on Child Labor Due Diligence: What You Need to Know, Corporate
Social Responsibility and the Law, 24 August. Available from: http://www.
csrandthelaw.com/2017/08/24/proposed-dutch-legislation-on-child-labor-duediligence-what-you-need-to-know/. [17 December 2017].

83
Elgie, O 2017, Swiss Parliament calls for parent company liability
for human rights breaches, Herbert Smith Freehills, 17 November. Available
from: https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/latest-thinking/swiss-parliamentcalls-for-parent-company-liability-for-human-rights-breaches. [17 November].

Global Affairs Canada 2018, The Government of
Canada brings leadership to responsible business conduct abroad,
Government of Canada, 17 January. Available from: https://www.
canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2018/01/the_government_
ofcanadabringsleadershiptoresponsiblebusinesscond.html. [29 January2017].

84

75
Kaye, L 2017, 'Brazil’s Political Turmoil Endangers 20 years ofProgress on Forced Labor,' Triple Pundit, 11 January. Available from: https://www.triplepundit.com/special/cotton-sustainability-c-and-a-foundation/brazilpolitical-turmoil-forced-labor/. [13 November 2017].

Labour Exploitation Accountability Hub 2017, One step forward
and two steps back? Brazil’s journey to combat labour exploitation. Available
from: http://accountabilityhub.org/blogs/one-step-forward-and-two-stepsback-brazils-journey-to-combat-labour-exploitation/. [8 November 2017].
76

European Union 2016, Directive 2014/95/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive
2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information
by certain large undertakings and groups, EUR-lex. Available from: http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0095. [17December 2017].
77

78This includes EU listed companies and unlisted companies
such as banks, insurance companies, or other “public-interest entities” asnominated by member countries.

European Commission n.d., Non-financial reporting, European
Union. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/
company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/non-financial-reporting_en. [17 December 2017].
79

GRI, CSR Europe & Accountancy Europe 2017, Member State
Implementation of Directive 2014/95/EU. Available from: https://www.
csreurope.org/sites/default/files/uploads/CSR%20Europe_GRI%20NFR%20
publication_0.pdf. [17 December 2017].

80

85
Ewins, J 2015, Independent Review of the Overseas Domestic
Workers Visa. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486532/ODWV_Review_-_Final_
Report__6_11_15_.pdf. [17 November 2017].

86
The “zero draft” of the Global Compact for Migration (releasedin February 2018) also emphasises the need for ethical recruitment as partof the broader goal of at achieving safe, orderly, and regular migration. This
negotiating draft includes a set of 22 objectives, including “fair and ethicalrecruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work.” The “zerodraft” can be accessed here: http://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/
files/180205_gcm_zero_draft_final.pdf.

87This indicator of government responses does not differentiate
between national and migrant workers.

88
Government of the United Kingdom 2017, Employment Agencies
Act 1973, The National Archives. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/1973/35/section/6. [16 November 2017].

89
The licensing scheme was introduced by the Gangmasters(Licensing) Act 2004, which can be accessed at: http://www.legislation.gov.
uk/ukpga/2004/11/contents.

Endnotes

Gangmasters & Labour Abuse Authority 2017, What we do.
Available from: http://www.gla.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-we-do/. [16 November
2017].
90259

unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/2015/Recruitment_Fees_ReportFinal-22_June_2015_AG_Final.pdf. [27 October 2018].

See for example: Danvi’s case, written up in Global Alliance
Against Traffic in Women (GAATW) 2017, Enabling Access to Justice,GAATW, p 28. Available from: http://www.gaatw.org/publications/GAATW_
Enabling%20Access%20to%20Justice_2017.pdf. [4 October 2017].

101

91
Gangmasters & Labour Abuse Authority 2017, Issue 53: GLAA
Powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. Available
from: http://www.gla.gov.uk/media/3120/gla-powers-under-pace.pdf. [24January 2017].

92
Metcalf, D 2017, United Kingdom Labour Market Enforcement
Strategy - Introductory Report, Government of the United Kingdom, p.
8-9. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/629872/labour-market-enforcement-strategyintroductory-report.pdf. [16 November 2017].

93

94

Exchange rate as at 6 February 2018: US$1 = €0.81.

102
Rejimon, K 2017, ‘Migrant maids in Oman at risk as India scraps
rescue scheme,’ Thomson Reuters Foundation News, 19 September.
Available from: https://news.trust.org/item/20170919162450-9wi2k [5 October
2017]. ‘India launched online registration system for foreign employers,’
The Economic Times, 02 July 2015. Available from: http://economictimes.
indiatimes.com/jobs/india-launches-online-registration-system-for-foreignemployers/articleshow/47908192.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_
medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst. [13 October 2017].

Ministry of External Affairs, E-Migrate Project, Government ofIndia. Available from: https://emigrate.gov.in/ext/static/EmigrateBrochureEng.
pdf. [10 March 2018].

103

As above.
Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women 2017, Enabling Accessto Justice, p.28. Available from: http://www.gaatw.org/publications/GAATW_
Enabling%20Access%20to%20Justice_2017.pdf. [17 December 2017].

104

Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection,
Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) Drittes Buch (III) - Arbeitsförderung: § 296
Vermittlungsvertrag zwischen Vermittlern und Arbeitsuchenden. Available
from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_3/__296.html. [2 February2018].

95

96

105
Fair Work Ombudsman 2017, On-hire employee services workplace obligations, Australian Government. Available from: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/723/On-hire-employees-servicesworkplace-obligations.pdf.aspx. [9 October 2017].

Field Source.

97
Employment Security Act (No. 82, 2003), p. 20, art. 32-3.
Available from: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_
isn=27781. [27 October 2017].

106
Renshaw, L 2016, Migrating for work and study: The role of the
migration broker in facilitating workplace exploitation, human trafficking andslavery, Australian Institue of Criminology, p.12. Available from: http://www.aic.
gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi527.pdf. [9 November 2017].

David, F 2010, Labour Trafficking, Research and Public Policy
Series, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

10798

Field source.

99

Exchange rate as at 6 February 2018: US$1 = 64.10 Indian Rupee.

100
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2015, The Role of
Recruitment Fees and Abusive and Fraudulent Recruitment Practices of
Recruitment Agencies in Trafficking in Persons. Available from: https://www.

108
Park, A, Wu, Y W & Du, Y 2012. Informal Employment in
Urban China: Measurement and Implications. World Bank. Available
from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/383331468220789675/
pdf/777370WP0Infor00Box377299B00PUBLIC0.pdf. [22 September 2017].

260

Global Slavery Index 2018

July 2017].
Lee, C K 2016, 'Precarization or Empowerment: Reflections on
Recent Labor Unrest in China,' The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 75, no. 2,
pp. 317-333.
109

Human Rights Watch 2018, Hidden Chains: Rights Abuses andForced Labor in Thailand’s Fishing Industry. Available from: https://www.
hrw.org/report/2018/01/23/hidden-chains/rights-abuses-and-forced-laborthailands-fishing-industry. [16 February 2018].

117

110
As above. Park, A, Wu, Y W & Du, Y 2012, Informal Employment
in Urban China: Measurement and Implications, World Bank. Available
from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/383331468220789675/
pdf/777370WP0Infor00Box377299B00PUBLIC0.pdf. [22 September 2017].

Lee, C K 2016, ‘Precarization or Empowerment: Reflections on
Recent Labor Unrest in China,’ The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 75, no. 2,
pp. 317-333.

111

118
Mendoza, M & Mason, M 2016, ‘Hawaiian seafood caught byforeign crews confined on boats,’ Associated Press, 8 September. Available
from: https://apnews.com/39ae05f117c64a929f0f8fab091c4ee1. [11 May 2017].

Lawrence, F & McSweeney, E 2018, ‘Police rescue nine suspectedvictims of slavery from British trawlers,’ The Guardian, 13 December. Available
from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/12/uk-police-rescue-ninesuspected-victims-of-slavery-from-british-trawlers. [21 February 2018].

119

112
China Briefing 2013, China Revises Labor Contract Law, 18 March.
Available from: http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2013/03/18/china-reviseslabor-contract-law.html. [11 July 2017].

113
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2011, Transnational
Organized Crime in the Fishing Industry. Available from: http://www.unodc.
org/documents/human-trafficking/Issue_Paper_-_TOC_in_the_Fishing_Industry.pdf. [12 May 2017].

114
International Organization for Migration 2016, Report on Human
Trafficking, Forced Labour and Fisheries Crime in the Indonesian Fishing
Industry. Available from: https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/country/docs/
indonesia/Human-Trafficking-Forced-Labour-and-Fisheries-Crime-in-theIndonesian-Fishing-Industry-IOM.pdf. [2 July 2017].

Issara Institute and International Justice Mission 2016, Not in thesame boat: prevalence & patterns of labour abuse across Thailand’s diverse
fishing industry. Available from: https://www.ijm.org/thai-fishing-study https://
docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5bf36e_9ec3ea47011343158f7c76fc7f14591f.pdf. [23July 2017]. International Labour Organization 2013, Employment practices
and working conditions in Thailand’s fishing sector, ILO, Bangkok. Available
from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/
documents/publication/wcms_220596.pdf. [11 May 2017]. Environmental
Justice Foundation 2014, Where is the horizon? Trafficked on fishing vessels.
Available from: https://www.winrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/
Booklet-Where-is-the-horizon_khmer-and-english-version.pdf. [12 May 2017].

115

120
‘African slaves on Chinese vessel in Uruguay,’ 2014, AFP, 22
May. Available from: https://www.news24.com/World/News/Africans-slaveson-Chinese-vessel-in-Uruguay-20140521. [10 July 2017]. ‘Uruguayan court
declines competence to rule on Chinese fishing vessel 'slavery' claims’,’ 2014,
MercoPress, 29 May. Available from: http://en.mercopress.com/2014/05/29/
uruguayan-court-declines-competence-to-rule-on-chinese-fishing-vesselslavery-claims. [11 March 2018].

121
Greenpeace 2016, Made in Taiwan - Government Failure
and Illegal, Abusive and Criminal Fisheries. Available from: https://www.
greenpeace.org/international/publication/7235/made-in-taiwan/. [19 May
2017].

122
Pauly, D & Zeller, D 2016, ‘Catch Reconstructions reveal that
global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining,’
Nature Communications 7, 10244. Available from: https://www.nature.
com/articles/ncomms10244. [1 November 2017]. Watson, R A, Cheung, W,
Anticamara, J A, Sumaila, R U, Zeller, D & Pauly, D 2013, ‘Global marine
yield halved as fishing intensity redoubles,’ Fish and Fisheries, vol. 14, 2016,
pp. 493-503.Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.14672979.2012.00483.x/abstract. [1 November 2017].

Sumaila, R U, Bellmann, C & Tipping, A 2014, Fishing for the
Future: Trends and Issues in Global Fisheries Trade, E15Initiative, Geneva:
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) andWorld Economic Forum. Available from: http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/02/E15_Fisheries_BP_Sumaila-Bellmann-Tipping_FINAL.pdf. [2August 2017].

123

116
Issara Institute and International Justice Mission 2016, Not in thesame boat: prevalence & patterns of labour abuse across Thailand’s diverse
fishing industry. Available from: https://www.ijm.org/thai-fishing-study https://
docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5bf36e_9ec3ea47011343158f7c76fc7f14591f.pdf. [23Endnotes

124
Pauly, D & Zeller, D (Editors) 2015, Sea Around Us Concepts,
Design and Data, Sea Around Us. Available from: www.seaaroundus.org. [23July 2017].

125
Walk Free Foundation 2016, Global Slavery Index 2016. Available
from: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/download/ [10 August 2017].

Tickler, D, Bryant, K, David, F, Forrest, J A, Gordon, E, Larsen, J
J, Meeuwig, J, Oh, B, Pauly, D, Sumaila, U R and Zeller, D, Common causes,
shared solutions: The relationship between modern slavery and the race tofish, [undergoing review for publication].
126

We averaged the value of reported industrial fisheries catch
between 2005-2014 using data from the Sea Around Us: Pauly, D & Zeller,
D (Editors) 2015, Sea Around Us Concepts, Design and Data, Sea Around Us.
Available from: www.seaaroundus.org. [2 June 2017].
127

128International Organization for Migration 2008, Trafficking in Men– a Trend Less Considered. The Case of Belarus and Ukraine, IOM Migration
Research Series No. 36, IOM, Geneva. Available from: http://publications.
iom.int/system/files/pdf/mrs_36.pdf. [11 May 2017]. Environmental JusticeFoundation 2012, Pirate Fishing Exposed: The Fight Against Illegal Fishing inWest Africa and the EU, Environmental Justice Foundation, London ISBN No.
978-1-904523-28-4. Available from: https://ejfoundation.org/reports/piratefishing-exposed-report. [12 May 2017]. Greenpeace 2016, Made in Taiwan- Government Failure and Illegal, Abusive and Criminal Fisheries. Available
from: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/publication/7235/made-intaiwan/. [19 May 2017]. Issara Institute and International Justice Mission 2016,
Not in the same boat: prevalence & patterns of labour abuse across Thailand’s
diverse fishing industry. Available from: https://www.ijm.org/thai-fishing-study.
[23 July 2017]. ‘African slaves on Chinese vessel in Uruguay,’ 2014, AFP, 22
May. Available from: https://www.news24.com/World/News/Africans-slaves-onChinese-vessel-in-Uruguay-20140521. [10 July 2017]. International Organization
for Migration 2014, In African waters. The trafficking of Cambodian fishers inSouth Africa. Available from: http://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/nexus_
africanwaters_web.pdf. [12 May 2017].

Tickler, D, Bryant, K, David, F, Forrest, J A, Gordon, E, Larsen, J
129
J, Meeuwig, J, Oh, B, Pauly, D, Sumaila, U R and Zeller, D, Common causes,
shared solutions: The relationship between modern slavery and the race tofish, [undergoing review for publication].

Tickler, D, Bryant, K, David, F, Forrest, J A, Gordon, E, Larsen, J
130
J, Meeuwig, J, Oh, B, Pauly, D, Sumaila, U R and Zeller, D, Common causes,
shared solutions: The relationship between modern slavery and the race tofish, [undergoing review for publication].

131
For the purposes of this study, a fishing country is one that has any
amount of reported fish catch caught by the industrial fishing sector between
2005 and 2014.

132

261

See further, UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2014,133
The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Available from: http://www.fao.
org/3/a-i3720e.pdf [1 August 2017].

134
Transshipment is the transfer of catch and/or crew between fishingvessels often situated large distances from port and, while used to minimise
the cost of distant water fishing, the practice can place fishers in situations offorced labour, minimising opportunities to escape while at port.

135
Kroodsma, D, Miller, N & Roan, A 2017, ‘Global view oftransshipment: Preliminary findings, Global Fishing Watch and SkyTruth,’ Global
Fishing Watch. Available from: http://globalfishingwatch.org/data-downloads. [3November 2017].

Lewis, S, & Boyle, M 2017, ‘The Expanding Role of Traceability in
136
Seafood: Tools and Key Initiatives,’ Journal of Food Science, vol. 82, pp. A13–
A21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13743. [20 November 2017].

137
Revell, T 2017, ‘AI uses bitcoin trail to find and help sex-trafficking
victims, ’New Scientist, 24 August. Available from: https://www.newscientist.
com/article/2145355-ai-uses-bitcoin-trail-to-find-and-help-sex-traffickingvictims/. [20 November 2017].

Buyback schemes involve the buying of vessels, licenses, permits
138
and/or fishing gear from commercial fishing enterprises as a method to easeovercapacity and overfishing.

139
International Cocoa Organization 2017, ‘Production of cocoa
beans,’ ICCO Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics, Vol. XLIII, No. 3, Cocoa year
2016/17, 31 August. Available from: https://www.icco.org/about-us/internationalcocoa-agreements/doc_download/2582-production-qbcs-xliii-no-3.html. [22February 2018].

262

Global Slavery Index 2018

140
A more detailed presentation of the results is available in theforthcoming report by Tulane University and the Walk Free Foundation.

148
Participants could report involvement in more than one form ofhazardous work.

141
The criteria for determining child labour in this study differed fromthe ILO Resolution Concerning Statistics of Child Labour in that the present
study did not include children aged 5 to 9 years of age, included a thresholdof working hours for children below minimum age for employment (15 years ofage), and did not count children of adults in forced labour as being in forced
labour.

149
Child labour includes children working in hazardous conditions
and children working more than the maximum allowable hours for their age, as
deemed by the ILO.

150
0.42%, 95% CI [0.01%, 2.44%], we estimate that the population
prevalence falls within the range of 0.1 persons per 1,000 population and 24.4
persons per 1,000 population.

142
International Labour Organization 2012, Hard to see, harder tocount: Survey guidelines to estimate forced labour of adults and children,
Geneva, pp. 17. Available from: http://ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/
publications/WCMS_182096/lang--en/index.htm. [2 March 2018].

151
0.17%, 95% CI [0.018%, 0.66%], we estimate that the population
prevalence falls within the range of 0.2 persons per 1,000 population and 6.6
persons per 1,000 population.

152
93.03%, 95% CI [88.26%, 95.95%], we estimate that the population
prevalence falls within the range of 882.6 persons per 1,000 population and959.5 persons per 1,000 population.

0.33%,95% CI [0.02%, 1.48%], we estimate that the population
143
prevalence falls within the range of 0.2 persons per 1,000 population and 14.8
persons per 1,000 population.

86.24%, 95% CI [79.54%, 91.39%], we estimate that the population
153
prevalence falls within the range of 795.4 persons per 1,000 population and913.9 persons per 1,000 population.

144
0.15%, 95% CI [0.003%, 0.91%], we estimate that the population
prevalence falls within the range of 0.3 persons per 1,000 population and 9.1
persons per 1,000 population.

154
Participants could report involvement in more than one form ofhazardous work.

1.98%, 95% CI [0.97%, 3.59%], we estimate that the population
145
prevalence falls within the range of 9.7 persons per 1,000 population and 35.9
persons per 1,000 population.

146
94.26%, 95% CI [92.26%, 95.77%], we estimate that the population
prevalence falls within the range of 922.6 persons per 1,000 population and957.7 persons per 1,000 population.

89.22%, 95% CI [85.53%, 92.05%], we estimate that the population
147
prevalence falls within the range of 855.3 persons per 1,000 population and920.5 persons per 1,000 population.

155
World Cocoa Foundation 2012, Cocoa Livelihoods Program, 14
November. Available from: http://www.nsi-ins.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/
Cocoa-Livelihoods-Program.pdf. [23 February 2018].

Responsible Cocoa n.d., The Challenge. Available from: http://156
responsiblecocoa.com/the-challenge/. [23 February 2018]. International Labor
Rights Forum 2014, The Fairness Gap: Farmer Incomes and Root Cause
Solutions to Ending Child Labor in the Cocoa Industry. Available from: https://www.laborrights.org/sites/default/files/publications/Fairness%20gap_low_res.
pdf. [23 February 2018].

International Labor Rights Forum 2014. The Fairness Gap:
157
Farmer Incomes and Root Cause Solutions to Ending Child Labor in the
Cocoa Industry. Available from: https://www.laborrights.org/sites/default/files/
publications/Fairness%20gap_low_res.pdf. [23 February 2018].

Endnotes

263

158
World Vision Australia 2011, Our Guilty Pleasure: Exploitative Child
Labour in the Chocolate Industry. Available from: https://campaign.worldvision.
com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Our-Guilty-Pleasure-Exploitative-ChildLabour-in-the-Chocolate-Industry-Full-Report.pdf. [23 February 2018].

165

As above.

166

As above.

159
Fountain, A C & Hütz-Adams, F 2015, Cocoa Barometer 2015.
Available from: http://www.cocoabarometer.org/Download_files/Cocoa%20
Barometer%202015%20Print%20Friendly%20Version.pdf. [28 February 2018].

Kapoor, A 2016, Children at the heart: Assessment of child labour
160
and child slavery in Côte d’Ivoire’s cocoa sector and recommendations to
Mondelēz International, Embode. Available from: https://www.cocoalife.org/~/
media/CocoaLife/Files/pdf/Library/FULL_REPORT_Côte_Ivoire_Mondelez_
Embode_ChildrenattheHeart.pdf. [28 February 2018].

161
Fountain, A C & Hütz-Adams, F 2015, Cocoa Barometer 2015.
Available from: http://www.cocoabarometer.org/Download_files/Cocoa%20
Barometer%202015%20Print%20Friendly%20Version.pdf. [28 February 2018].

162
International Labor Rights Forum 2014, The Fairness Gap:
Farmer Incomes and Root Cause Solutions to Ending Child Labor in the
Cocoa Industry. Available from: https://www.laborrights.org/sites/default/files/
publications/Fairness%20gap_low_res.pdf. [23 February 2018].

163
International Labour Organization 2014, The twin challengesof child labour and educational marginalisation in the ECOWAS
region. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/download.
do?type=document&id=25517. [28 February 2018].

167
Tony’s Chocolonely 2017, Annual Fair Report 2015/2016.
Available from: https://us.tonyschocolonely.com/wp-content/
uploads/2017/01/AnnualFAIRrep2016_ENG_LRspreads_def.pdf [28February 2018]. Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017, Tackling child labour. Available
from: https://www.nestlecocoaplanreport.com/sites/default/files/2017-10/
NestleCocoaPlanReport2017_EN_0.pdf. [28 February 2018].

168
International Cocoa Initiative Foundation 2016, Harkin Engel
Protocol. Available from: http://www.cocoainitiative.org/knowledge-centre-post/
harkin-engel-protocol/. [28 February 2018].

169
Payson Center for International Development and Technology
Transfer, Tulane University 2011, Oversight of Public and Private Initiatives to
Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor in the Cocoa Sector in Côte d’Ivoire
and Ghana, United States Department of Labor, Washington DC. Available
from: https://www.dol.gov/ilab/issues/child-labor/cocoa/Tulane_Final_Report.
pdf [22 February 2018]. Payson Center for International Development andTechnology Transfer, Tulane University 2015, Survey Research on Child Survey
Research on Child Labor in West African Cocoa Growing Areas 2013/14: Finalreport. Available from: http://www.childlaborcocoa.org/images/Payson_Reports/
Tulane%20University%20-%20Survey%20Research%20on%20Child%20
Labor%20in%20the%20Cocoa%20Sector%20-%2030%20July%202015.pdf. [14February 2018].

170
International Labour Organization 2017, C182 - Worst Forms ofChild Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). Available from: http://www.ilo.org/
dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C182 [28February 2018].
Kapoor, A 2016, Children at the heart: Assessment of child labour
164
and child slavery in Côte d’Ivoire’s cocoa sector and recommendations to
Mondelēz International, Embode. Available from: https://www.cocoalife.org/~/
media/CocoaLife/Files/pdf/Library/FULL_REPORT_Côte_Ivoire_Mondelez_
Embode_ChildrenattheHeart.pdf. [28 February 2018].

171
World Cocoa Foundation 2017, Cocoa and Forests Initiative.
Available from: http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/cocoa-forests-initiative/.
[28 February 2018].

264

Global Slavery Index 2018

172
International Labour Organization 2017, ILO and Government of
Ghana Are Committed to Fighting Child Labour. Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/addisababa/media-centre/pr/WCMS_563088/lang--en/index.htm [28February 2018].

8
Freedom House 2017, Freedom in the World 2017 - Political Rights.
Available from: https://freedomhouse.org/report/fiw-2017-table-country-scores.
[14 March 2018].
173‘Ivorian Government partners with ICI to further tackle childprotection in cocoa communities,’ 2016, Source Trust, 4 May. Available from:http://www.sourcetrust.org/ivorian-government-partners-with-ici-to-furthertackle-child-protection-in-cocoa-communities/. [1 March 2018].
9
Freedom House, 2017, Freedom in the World 2017 – Civil Liberties.
Available from: https://freedomhouse.org/report/fiw-2017-table-country-scores.
[14 March 2018].
Appendices10
World Bank 2016, Global FINDEX. Available from: http://databank.
worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=1228#. [14 March 2018].
1
Liberty Asia & The Freedom Fund 2015, Modern Slavery andCorruption. Available from: http://un-act.org/publication/modern-slavery-andcorruption/. [14 March 2018].

11
UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2015, Literacy. Available from: http://
data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=166. [14 March 2018].
2
The Freedom Fund 2016, Modern Slavery and Trafficking in
Conflict: The UN’s Response. Available from: freedomfund.org/wp-content/
uploads/UN-trafficking-in-conflict-WEB.pdf. [14 March 2018].
12
World Bank Development Indicators 2015, Child Mortality. Available
from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT. [14 March 2018].

3
Bales, K 2016, Blood and Earth: Modern Slavery, Ecocide, and theSecret to Saving the World, Spiegel and Grau, New York.
13
Transparency International 2016, Corruption Perceptions Index.
Available from: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_
perceptions_index_2016#resources. [14 March 2018].
4
Within the Global Slavery Index itself, the vulnerability modelling
has served an additional purpose. For many of the countries that we do notor cannot obtain a national level estimate either through Multiple Systems
Estimation (MSE) or nationally representative surveys, the vulnerability modelis the key to our understanding of the risks of modern slavery. In the 2014
and 2016 GSI, we used the vulnerability model as the basis of clusteringcountries into risk groupings. This was the first step of a process, from which
we extrapolated prevalence estimates. In 2018, the country-level vulnerability
model was one layer of risk data that contributed to our prevalence model for
GSI 2018.

14International Labour Organization 2015, World Security Report
2014/2015. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/
world-social-security-report/2014/WCMS_245201/lang--en/index.htm. [14 March2018].

Tadjbakhsh, S & Chenoy, A M 2007, Human Security: Concepts and5
Implications, London: Routledge.

15
World Bank 2015, Gross Domestic Product Per Capita in terms ofPurchasing Power Parity. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/research/
global-reports/world-social-security-report/2014/WCMS_245201/lang--en/index.htm. [14 March 2018].

6
See Joudo Larsen, J & Durgana, D P 2017, ‘Measuring vulnerability
and estimating prevalence of modern slavery,’ Chance: Special issue on
modern slavery, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 21-29, American Statistical Association.

16
World Governance Indicators Project 2015, Government
Effectiveness. Available from: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.
aspx#home. [14 March 2018].

7

17
United Nations Human Development Programme 2015, Gender
Inequality Index. Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/GII. [14 March

The variable “Minorities” refers to ethnic and racial minorities.

Endnotes

2652018].
27
Gallup, Inc. n.d., Gallup Analytics. Available from: http://www.gallup.
com/products/170987/gallup-analytics.aspx. [10 February 2017].

18
Yale University 2016, Environmental Protection Index (EPI).
Available from: https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/. [14 March 2018].
28
Center for Systemic Peace 2016, The Polity Project. Available from:http://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html. [10 February 2017].

19
As only one Political Rights measure was retained, this Alternative
Political Rights Measure will now be referenced as “Political Rights” forsimplicity.

29
World Bank n.d., World Governance Indicators Project. Available
from: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home. [5 March2017].

30
World Bank n.d., Mobile Cellular Subscriptions (per 100 people).
Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2. [12 January2017].
20
Fajnzylber, P, Lederman, D & Loayza, N 2002, ‘Inequality andViolent Crime,’ Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XLV, pp. 1-39. Available from:www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/338347. [14 March 2018]21

As above.

22
Ernst & Young (EY) is a professional services firm. Further
information on the services provided is available from: http://www.ey.com/au/
en/home.

23
variable.

All data are the most recent publicly available data for each

31International Labour Organization 2015, World Social Protection
Report 2014/15, ILO. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/research/globalreports/world-social-security-report/2014/WCMS_245201/lang--en/index.htm.
[12 January 2017].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations n.d., Food
32
Security. Available from: http://faostat3.fao.org/download/D/*/E. [12 January2017].

33
WHO & UNICEF n.d., Data & estimates from WHO/UNICEF Joint
Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Available from: http://
www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/tables/. [12 January 2017].

World Health Organization 2016, Global Tuberculosis Report, The
34
World Bank. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.TBS.INCD/
countries. [12 January 2017].

24
The Institute for Economics and Peace 2016, Global Peace Index:
Global Rankings. Available from: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/
indexes/global-peace-index/2016. [12 January 2017].

25

35
The World Bank n.d., Global Financial Inclusion Database. Available
from: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=1228. [12January 2017].

As above.
Gallup, Inc. n.d., Gallup Analytics. Available from: http://www.gallup.
36
com/products/170987/gallup-analytics.aspx. [10 February 2017].

26
WomanSTATS Project n.d. Available from: http://www.womanstats.
org/data.html. [12 January 2017].
37

The Institute for Economics and Peace 2016, Global Peace Index:

266

Global Slavery Index 2018

Global Rankings. Available from: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/
indexes/global-peace-index/2016. [12 January 2017].

38
United Nations Development Programme n.d., Table 3:
Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index, United Nations Development
Programme Reports. Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/IHDI. [12January 2017].

47
International Labour Office (ILO) & Walk Free Foundation 2017,
Methodology of the global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour andforced marriage, ILO. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forcedlabour/ publications/WCMS_586127/lang--en/index.htm. [10 February 2017]

39
The World Bank n.d., Global Financial Inclusion Database. Available
from: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=1228. [12January 2017].

48
Used by large international organizations such as the World
Bank, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the International Labour
Organization, the Gallup World Poll continually surveys in more than 160
countries, representing more than 99 percent of the world’s adult population.

40
Gallup, Inc. n.d., Gallup Analytics. Available from: http://www.gallup.
com/products/170987/gallup-analytics.aspx. [10 February 2017].

41

As above.

42

As above.

43
The Institute for Economics and Peace 2016, Global Peace Index:
Global Rankings. Available from: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/
indexes/global-peace-index/2016. [12 January 2017].

44

49
The questionnaire is translated into the major languages of eachcountry, and interviews are conducted by highly trained enumerators fromeach country. All face-to-face interviews take place at a person’s home, which
can be defined as any dwelling with a cooking facility. A detailed descriptionof the World Poll Methodology is available at: http://www.gallup.com/178667/
gallup-world-poll-work.aspx.

50
The target population is the entire civilian, non-institutionalised
population, aged 15 and older. Samples are probability-based and nationally
representative and, with the only exception being areas that are scarcely
populated or present a threat to the safety of interviewers.

As above.

45
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees n.d., Population
Statistics. Available from: http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/time_series. [10 February2017].

46
The countries in which forced labour or forced marriage wasreported to have occurred by survey respondents were: Afghanistan, Algeria,
Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil,
Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, Columbia, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon,
Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro,
Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan,Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia,
Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Thailand,
Tunisia, UAE, Uganda, UK, Ukraine, US, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

51
Joudo Larsen J, & Diego-Rosell P 2017, 2017 Insight series: Using
surveys to measure modern slavery, Walk Free Foundation. Available from:https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/walkfreefoundation.org-assets/content/uploads/2017/12/01171017/02-Insight-Series-171201_FNL.pdf. [1 March2018].

52
Analyses were conducted by Gallup Inc and Walk Free Foundation
and are described in full in a forthcoming paper: Diego-Rosell P & Joudo
Larsen J (Forthcoming). Modelling the risk of modern slavery.

Endnotes

53
For the remaining 20 countries where no GWP data was available,risk scores were imputed as an average over several multiple imputation
approaches.

54
All data was collected by Gallup Inc., with most surveys
implemented through the Gallup World Poll (GWP), a global research project
conducting nationally representative surveys annually since 2005 in morethan 160 countries and more than 140 languages. In most of the developingworld, GWP surveys are conducted using in-person interviewing and an areasampling frame design. In the developed world, random-digit-dialling or anationally representative list of phone numbers is used, generally including
landline and mobile phones stratified by region. All surveys, either telephoneor face-to-face, are probability based and nationally representative of theresident non-institutionalize population aged 15 and older. See http://www.
gallup.com/178667/gallup-world-poll-work.aspx for further methodologicaldetails.

The working definition of forced marriage for this purpose deviates
55
in one key aspect from the definition of forced marriage used in the Walk
Free Foundation’s Global Slavery Index (2016) and the International Labour
Organization and Walk Free Foundation Global Estimates of Modern Slavery(2017). Our definition does not take into account whether the forced marriage
occurred in the five years preceding the survey or took place prior to thereference period but the victim reported their marital status as “married” during
the reference period. The exclusion of these clauses is due to the limited
sample size available for the stricter definition used by the International Labour
Organization and the Walk Free Foundation (see “Statistical Methods” section).

See Part A of this Appendix for a list of the variables from the56
Vulnerability Model.

267

60
Six sets of projection sampling weights were computed tocompensate for the different sample sizes available for each model. Eachweight was computed by rebasing the original post-stratification individual
weights on the base and extended samples so that the effective samples were
projected to the adult population in each country.

61
Log-Likelihood Full Model, Wald test, AIC, BIC, Pseudo R2,
Nagelkerke R2, AUC (training), AUC (validation).

62
Because our data deal with rare events that in a frequentist
approach may lead to singularities in matrix inversions, we adopt a Bayesian
approach. Besides the computational advantages, a Bayesian approach also
allows us to incorporate basic prior knowledge about the prevalence anddistribution of modern slavery. Independent weakly informative priors formodel intercepts and regression coefficients, using a t density function with
7 degrees of freedom and scale 2.5, based on recommendations from Liu(2004) were assigned. Posterior predictive distributions are sampled using
Hamiltonian MCMC, with 3 Markov chains and 1,000 iterations.

63

via Stan (rstanarm package, see Gabry & Goodrich, 2016).

The distinction between “opportunity” and “necessity”
64
entrepreneurs is well-understood in the development community, and the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) has found a preponderance ofnecessity entrepreneurs in developing countries. See further: https://tcdata360.
worldbank.org/indicators/aps.ea.nec?country=ESP&indicator=3118&viz=line_
chart&years=2001,2015

65
In order to compare the predictive accuracy of the different
hierarchical Bayes models, we use leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO) toestimate pointwise out-of-sample prediction accuracy using the log-likelihood
evaluated at the posterior simulations of the parameter values (Vehtari,
Gelman, and Gabry, 2016).
57
For example, variables regarding governance issues are notcollected in countries such as China, the US and most of the countries in the
MENA region, and so the inclusion of these variables in the model effectively
excludes a large portion of the population.
66
See Diego-Rosell P & Joudo Larsen J (forthcoming). Modelling therisk of modern slavery.

As most variables in the Gallup World Poll are collected at the58
respondent level, the estimation approach is at the respondent level.

All estimations take into account the multi-stage clustered
59
nature of the sample, including the effect of sampling design in all varianceestimations using the Stata ‘svy’ package with linearization via Taylor series.

Bayes hierarchical linear model with weak priors, 7 demographic
67
predictors, 6 “base” variables from the Gallup World Poll, one country-level
predictor (Weighted Vulnerability Score), country-level random intercepts,
and a cross-level interaction between currently owning a business and region(South Asia vs rest).

268

Global Slavery Index 201868
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 2016, Global
Report on Trafficking in Persons, UNODC. Available from: https://www.unodc.
org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/2016_Global_Report_on_Trafficking_in_Persons.pdf. [3 October 2017]. U.S. Department of State 2017, Trafficking in
Persons report 2017. Available from: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2017/.
[3 October 2017]. ILO 2015, ILO Global estimates of migrant workers andmigrant domestic workers: results and methodology, ILO. Available from: http://
www.ilo.org/global/topics/labour-migration/publications/WCMS_436343/lang-en/index.htm. [3 October 2017].

69
Anti-Slavery International 2013, Thematic report on slavery
in Mauritania for the UN Human Rights Committee, 107th session,
11–28 March 2013. Adoption of the List of Issues on the initial report ofMauritania, Anti-Slavery International, United Nations Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights. Available from: https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/
local/1066447/1930_1371813094_anti-slaveryinternational-mauritania-hrc107.
pdf. [3 October 2016].

Silverman, Bernard. Modern Slavery: an Application of Multiple
70
Systems Estimation 2014, United Kingdom Home Office, Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modern-slavery-an-application-ofmultiple-systems-estimation. [18 May 2018]71
Van Dijk, Jan, and Van Der Heijden, Peter, G.M. Research Brief:
Multiple Systems Estimation for Estimating the Number of Victims of Human
Trafficking Across the World 2016, UNODC, Available from: https://www.unodc.
org/documents/data-and-analysis/tip/TiPMSE.pdf. [18 May 2018]75
Council of Europe 2005, Council of Europe Convention on Action
against Trafficking in Human Beings, 16.V.2005, Warsaw.

76
Bales, K 2007, Ending Slavery: How we Free Today's Slaves,
University of California Press. Gallagher, A & Holmes, P 2008, 'Developing an
Effective Criminal Justice Response to Human Trafficking: Lessons from the
Frontline,' International Criminal Justice Review, vol. 18, pp. 318-348. Office
to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 2011, The 3 Ps: Prevention,
Protection, Prosecution, U.S. Department of State. Available from: https://www.
state.gov/j/tip/3p/. [19 September 2014].

77
After three iterations of this assessment, we re-mapped ourframework against the Council of Europe Convention Action against Trafficking
Beings and have found there to be approximately 90 percent cross over with
the European Convention. A paper describing this research is forthcoming at
the time of publication.

78
Commonwealth countries included are Antigua and Barbuda,
Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Kiribati, Malta, Nauru, Saint Lucia,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles,
Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Palau, a non-Commonwealthcountry, is also included for the first time.

79
Identified using the 2016 Fragile States Index, where thosecountries that scored 10.0 on the Security Apparatus indicator were excluded.
See http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/2016/06/27/fragile-states-index-2016-annualreport/.

80
English, Spanish, Italian, French, German, and Chinese. Portuguese
and Arabic speakers were missing from the team this year. The team’s
background included law, international relations, international development,
and American studies.

72
Clarke, R & Homel, R 1997, 'A Revised Classification of Situational
Crime Prevention Techniques,' in: Andersen, O C A (ed.) Crime Prevention
at a Crossroads. Ekblom, P & Tilley, N 2000, 'Going equipped: criminology,
situational crime prevention and the resourceful offender,' British Journalof Criminology, 40. Lampe, K V 2011, 'The application of the framework of
Situational Crime Prevention to 'organized crime,'' Criminology and Criminal
Justice, vol. 11, pp. 145-163.

81

Available at https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/data/.

M4 1.4.3 and M4 1.8.1 were weighted as one activity given the82role that corruption and state-imposed forced labour plays in undermining agovernment response

United Nations 2000, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish
73
Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing theUnited Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, Doc.
A/55/383, New York.

83

International Labour Organization 2014, P029 - Protocol of 2014 to74
the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, Geneva.

84
International Labour Organization & Walk Free Foundation 2017,
Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage,

As above.

Endnotes

269

Geneva. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/
WCMS_575479/lang--en/index.htm. [2 October 2017].

85
International Labour Organization 2018, Committee of Experts on
the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. Available from: http://
www.ilo.org/global/standards/applying-and-promoting-international-labourstandards/committee-of-experts-on-the-application-of-conventions-andrecommendations/lang--en/index.htm. [5 February 2018].

86
International Labour Organization & Walk Free Foundation 2017,
Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage,
Geneva. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/
WCMS_575479/lang--en/index.htm. [2 October 2017].

92
For political reasons, the UN is not allowed to show trade statistics
for Taiwan, Province of China. Therefore, Taiwan is included under "Other
Asia, not elsewhere specified" (country code 490) in the BACI trade dataset.
In principle, trade data for territories belonging to Asia, but not specified bycountry, could end up in code 490. In practice, only trade of Taiwan is included
under this code, except for a few countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia which report all of
their exports to unknown countries). For more information, please see: https://
unstats.un.org/unsd/tradekb/Knowledgebase/Taiwan-Province-of-China-TradedataCEPII 2015, BACI World trade database. Available from: http://www.cepii.fr/
cepii/en/bdd_modele/presentation.asp?id=1. [2 February 2018].

93
Imports data are presented for 18 countries of the G20. South
Africa was excluded as it does not report trade data individually but only
through the Southern African Customs Union, which comprises five countriesof Southern Africa (South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, and Swaziland).
The European Union was also excluded as much of its trade is alreadycaptured in the data of Germany, Italy, France, and the UK.

87
International Labour Organization 2018, NORMLEX: Information
System on International Labour Standards. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/
dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:20010:0::NO:::. [2 February 2018].

88
Not every country is required to report every year, with the eight
fundamental and four priority conventions on a biennial cycle. Reports forall other conventions must be submitted every five years. See International
Labour Organization 2018a, Committee of Experts on the Application ofConventions and Recommendations. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/global/
standards/applying-and-promoting-international-labour-standards/committeeof-experts-on-the-application-of-conventions-and-recommendations/lang--en/index.htm. [5 February 2018].

94
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
2013, Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery,
including its causes and consequences, Gulnara Shahinian: Mission to
Kazakhstan, United Nations Human Rights Council, Twenty-fourth session.
Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/147/06/
PDF/G1414706.pdf?OpenElement. [8 February 2018].

95
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
2014, Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery,
including its causes and consequences, Gulnara Shahinian: Follow-up mission
to Kazakhstan,'. United Nations Human Rights Council, Twenty-seventh session.
Available from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/
Session27/Documents/A_HRC_27_53_Add_2_ENG.doc. [9 February 2018].

89
Using for example UN treaty reports, regional reports such as
GRETA, the US Trafficking in Persons Report, and credible media reports.
96
United Nations Human Rights Committee 2016, Concluding
observations on the second periodic report of Kazakhstan, United Nations.
Available from: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/
Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/KAZ/CO/2&Lang=En. [8 February 2018].
90
Johns, M B & Ruta, M 2016, ‘Putting trade and investment at thecenter of the G20,’ The Trade Post, World Bank, 17 February. Available from:http://blogs.worldbank.org/trade/putting-trade-and-investment-center-g20. [8March 2018].
97
Scarborough, I 2013, Children and Student Participationin Tajikistan’s Cotton Harvest: Annual Assessment 2012, International
Organization for Migration. Available from: http://publications.iom.int/system/
files/pdf/cotton_monitoring_report2012.pdf. [9 February 2018].
91
Bureau of International Labor Affairs 2016, List of Goods Producedby Child Labor or Forced Labor. United States Department of Labor. Available
from: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/reports/child-labor/
findings/TVPRA_Report2016.pdf. [12 January 2018].
98

Scarborough, I M 2014. Child, Student, and Adult Participation

270

Global Slavery Index 2018

in Tajikistan’s Cotton Harvest: 2013 Annual Assessment, International
Organization for Migration. Available from: http://publications.iom.int/system/
files/pdf/tajikistan_cotton_2013annualassessment_final.pdf. [9 February 2018].

99
Scarborough, I M 2016, Child and forced labour exploitationin Tajikistan's cotton harvest: 2015 annual monitoring report, International
Organization for Migration. Available from: http://www.iom.tj/files/
cottoneng2015.pdf. [20 February 2018].

100
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 2017, Tajikistan
Country Narrative, United States Department of State. Available from: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2017/271295.htm [20 February 2018].

101
Amnesty International 2017, Turkmenistan 2016/2017. Available
from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/
turkmenistan/report-turkmenistan/. [9 February 2018].

102
International Labour Organization Committee of Experts 2017,
Observation (CEACR) – adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)
Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Turkmenistan(Ratification: 1997), International Labour Organization. Available from: http://
www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:13100:0::::P13100_COMMENT_
ID:3297278. [8 February 2018].

103
United Nations Human Rights Committee 2017, Concluding
observations on the second periodic report of Turkmenistan, United Nations.
Available from: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/
Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fTKM%2fCO%2f2&Lang=en. [9February 2018].

104
Alternative Turkmenistan News 2014, Spotlight on Turkmenistan:Widespread State-Orchestrated Forced Labor in Turkmenistan’s
2014 Cotton Harvest. Available from: http://www.cottoncampaign.org/
uploads/3/9/4/7/39474145/stateforcedlaborinturkmenistan2014_report_atn.pdf.
[9 February 2018].

105
International Labour Organization 2018, Third-party monitoringof measures against child labour and forced labour during the 2017 cotton
harvest in Uzbekistan. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/
public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_617830.pdf. [20February 2018].

106
International Labour Organization 2017, Third-party monitoringof measures against child labour and forced labour during the 2016 cotton
harvest in Uzbekistan. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/
public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_543130.pdf. [9February 2018].

107
Human Rights Watch & Uzbek -German Forum for Human Rights
2017, 'We Can’t Refuse to Pick Cotton' Forced and Child Labor Linked to WorldBank Group Investments in Uzbekistan. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/
sites/default/files/report_pdf/uzbekistan0617_web_3.pdf . [23 October 2017].

108
Uzbek-German Forum for Human Rights 2015, Harvest Report
2015, Executive Summary. Available from: http://harvestreport2015.
uzbekgermanforum.org/pdf/harvestreport-2015.pdf. [8 February 2017].

Human Rights Watch 2013, Uzbekistan: Forced Labor Widespread109
in Cotton Harvest. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/25/
uzbekistan-forced-labor-widespread-cotton-harvest. [9 February 2018].

110
Human Rights Watch 2016, 'They Bear All the Pain': Hazardous
Child Labor in Afghanistan. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/
report/2016/07/14/they-bear-all-pain/hazardous-child-labor-afghanistan. [9February 2018].

111
ILO-IPEC & UNICEF 2015, Breaking the mould: Occupationalsafety hazards faced by children working in brick kilns in Afghanistan,International Labour Organization and United Nations International Children’s
Emergency Fund. Available from: www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/download.
do?type=document&id=25295. [9 February 2019].

De Lauri, A 2015, ''Debtor forever' Debt and bondage in Afghan
112
and Pakistani brick kilns', Shadows of Slavery in West Africa and Beyond. A
Historical Anthropology. Available from: http://www.shadowsofslavery.org/
publications/SWAB-WPS_1-2015_debtor_forever.pdf. [9 February 2018].

113

Exchange rate as at 21 February 2018: US$1 = £0.71.

114
Waiwright, O 2014, 'Blood bricks: how India's urban boom isbuilt on slave labour, The Guardian, 9 January. Available from: https://www.
theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jan/08/bloodbricks-india-urbanisation-human-rights-slave-labour. [9 February 2018].

See for example: Hawksley, H 2014, 'Punished by axe:
115
Bonded labour in India's brick kiln,' BBC News, 11 July. Available from:http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27486450. [12 February 2018].
Banerjee, B & Sharma, A 2016, 'Slavery persists for millions in India,
despite improvements,' AP News, 2 June. Available from: https://apnews.
com/71aaf643e8d44bad9e6020d1f08459fb/india-tops-world-slavery-listcharity-cites-improvement. [12 February 2018].

Endnotes

116
Hawksley, H 2014, 'Why India's brick kiln workers live like slaves,'
BBC News, 2 January. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asiaindia-25556965. [9 February 2018].

117

118

271

126
Azam, A & Rafiq, M 2014, 'Victims of circumstances: A case study
to explore the socio economic problems of bonded labor working at brick kiln
in Pakistan,' International Journal of Business, Economics and Management
Works, vol. 1, pp. 1-5.

Exchange rates at 22 February 2018: US$1 = 64.89 Indian Rupees.

As above.

127
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2017,
Compilation on Pakistan: Report of the Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Council,
Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Twenty-eighth session.
Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/257/52/
PDF/G1725752.pdf?OpenElement. [12 February 2018].

119'75 kids among 333 bonded labourers freed from brick kiln,' The
Times of India, 13 February 2015. Available from: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.
com/city/chennai/75-kids-among-333-bonded-labourers-freed-from-brick-kiln/
articleshow/46223058.cms. [9 February 2018].

128
United Nations Human Rights Committee 2017. Concluding
observations on the initial report of Pakistan, United Nations. Available
from: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.
aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/PAK/CO/1&Lang=En. [12 February 2018].

120
International Justice Mission 2017, Brick kiln owner guilty fortrapping 12 people in bonded labour slavery, 14 March. Available from: http://
www.ijmuk.org/blog/brick-kiln-owner-guilty-trapping-12-people-bonded-labourslavery. [12 February 2018].

129
McGrath, S 2012, 'Many Chains to Break: The Multi-dimensional
Concept of Slave Labour in Brazil,' Antipode, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1005-1028.

Htwe, Z Z 2016, ''Enslaved’ brick workers rescued from 19-hour
121
shifts,' Myanmar Times, 12 December. Available from: : https://www.mmtimes.
com/national-news/24153-enslaved-brick-workers-rescued-from-19-hour-shifts.
html. [12 February 2018].

122
Htwe, Z Z 2017, 'Brickyard owners off the hook,' Myanmar Times,
10 January. Available from: https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/24467brickyard-owners-off-the-hook.html. [12 February 2018].

Pattison, P & Kelly, A 2015, 'How Nepal is trying to solve its blood
123
brick problem,' The Guardian, 13 February. Available from: https://www.
theguardian.com/global-development/2015/feb/12/how-nepal-is-trying-to-solveits-blood-brick-problem. [12 February 2018].

124
Pattisson, P 2015, 'Aid money for development projects in Nepal
linked to child labour,' The Guardian, 12 February. Available from: https://www.
theguardian.com/global-development/2015/feb/12/aid-money-developmentprojects-nepal-child-labour. [12 February 2018].

De Lauri, A 2017, 'The Absence of Freedom: Debt, Bondage and125
Desire among Pakistani Brick Kiln Workers,' Journal of Global Slavery, vol. 2, no.
1-2, pp. 122-138.

130
Iberico-Lozada, L 2013, 'In sweatshops, the 'Brazilian dream'goes awry,' Reuters, 1 September. Available from: http://www.reuters.com/
article/us-brazil-immigrants/in-sweatshops-the-brazilian-dream-goes-awryidUSBRE98004L20130901. [23 October 2017].

Houghton, L 2016, 'Brazil: Slaves to Fashion,' Aljazeera, 29
131
December. Available from: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/latinamerica-investigates/2016/12/brazil-slaves-fashion-161229063654192.html. [19December 2017].

132
Amon, J J, Pearshouse, R, Cohen, J & Schleifer, R 2013,'Compulsory drug detention centers in China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos:
Health and human rights abuses,' Health and Human Rights, vol. 15, no. 2, pp.
124-137.

Kinetz, E 2017, 'Inside Ivanka Trump's Chinese shoe factory:
133
Workers speak out about physical beatings and verbal abuse,' The
Independent, 28 June. Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/
business/news/ivanka-trump-shoe-factory-china-workers-physical-beatingverbal-abuse-ganzhou-huajian-international-a7812671.html. [13 March 2018].

'Labour activist’s family pays the price for Ivanka Trump probe in
134
China,' South China Morning Post, 25 January 2018. Available from: http://www.
scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2130579/labour-activists-family-paysprice-ivanka-trump-probe-china. [13 March 2018].

272

Global Slavery Index 2018

135
Harwell, D 2017, 'Workers endured long hours, low pay at Chinese
factory used by Ivanka Trump’s clothing-maker,' The Washington Post, 25 April.
Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/workersendured-long-hours-low-pay-at-chinese-factory-used-by-ivanka-trumpsclothing-maker/2017/04/25/b6fe6608-2924-11e7-b605-33413c691853_story.
html?utm_term=.dcf66fc1ec3a. [20 December 2017].

136
Farand, C 2017, 'Chinese factory used by Ivanka Trump’s brandaccused of violating international labour laws,' The Independent, 26 April.
Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivankatrump-china-factory-china-g-iii-apparel-group-violate-international-labour-lawsclothing-line-a7702741.html. [20 December 2017].

Delaney, A & Connor, T 2016, Forced Labour in the Textile and137
Garment Sector in Tamil Nadu, South India, Corporate Accountability Research.
Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2889125.
[19 December 2017].

Theuws, M & Overeem, P 2014, Flawed Fabrics: The abuse of girls
138
and women workers in the South Indian textile industry, Centre for Research on
Multinational Corporations and India Committee of the Netherlands. Available
from: http://www.indianet.nl/pdf/FlawedFabrics.pdf. [20 December 2017].

139
Anti-Slavery International 2012, Slavery on the High Street: Forced
labour in the manufacture of garments for international brands. Available from:http://www.antislavery.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/1_slavery_on_the_high_street_june_2012_final.pdf. [20 December 2017].

140
Ganguly, A 2013, Wage Structures in the Indian Garment Industry,Society for Labour and Development & Asia Floor Wage Alliance. Available
from: http://asia.floorwage.org/resources/wage-reports/wage-structures-in-theindian-garment-industry. [20 December 2017].

Harima, R 2012, Migrant women workers in Thailand, Cambodia
141
and Malaysia, War on Want. Available from: http://www.waronwant.org/sites/
default/files/Restricted%20Rights.pdf. [15 December 2017].

144
Brown, M 2013, 'Vietnam's lost children in labyrinth of slave labour,'
BBC News, 27 August. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/worldasia-23631923. [15 December 2017].

Verité 2012, Research on Indicators of Forced Labor in the Supply
145
Chains of Brazil-Nuts, Cattle, Corn, and Peanuts in Bolivia. Available from:https://www.verite.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Research-on-Indicators-ofForced-Labor-in-the-Bolivia-Brazil-nut-Cattle-Corn-and-Peanut-Sectors__9.19.
pdf. [20 December 2019].

146
Gross, A S 2017, 'Brazil ordered to pay $5m to workers formerly
enslaved on cattle ranch,' The Guardian, 10 January. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/09/brazil-ordered-to-pay5m-to-workers-formerly-enslaved-on-cattle-ranch. [12 January 2018].

147
Maisonnave, F & Gross, A S 2017, ''He’d only calm down if he killed
one of us’: victims of slavery on farms in Brazil,' The Guardian, 29 September.
Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/sep/29/victims-of-slavery-farms-in-brazil-para-state-amazonian-rainforest. [16December 2017].

148
Gross, A S & Aranha, A 2017, 'Waitrose pulls its corned beef off
shelves after Guardian reveals alleged slavery links,' The Guardian, 6 June.
Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jun/06/
waitrose-pulls-its-corned-beef-off-shelves-after-guardian-reveals-allegedslavery-links-brazil. [18 January 2017].

United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of149
slavery, including its causes and consequences, Urmila Bhoola, 2015, Reportof the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its
causes and consequences: Mission to the Niger, United Nations Human Rights
Council, Thirtieth session. Available from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/
HRC/RegularSessions/Session30/Documents/A_HRC_30_35_Add_1_ENG.
docx. [7 February 2018].

ILO Conference Committee on the Application of Standards 2013,
150
Observations of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations, Convention No. 29: Forced Labour Convention –Paraguay, International Labour Organization. Available from: http://www.ilo.
org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/
wcms_229263.pdf. [24 October 2017].

Clean Clothes Campaign and MAP Foundation 2014, Migrant
142
Workers in Thailand’s Garment Factories. Available from: https://cleanclothes.
org/resources/publications/migrant-workers-in-thailands-garment-factories/
view. [15 December 2017].
151
McGrath, S 2012, 'Many Chains to Break: The Multi-dimensional
Concept of Slave Labour in Brazil,' Antipode, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1005-1028.

Amon, J J, Pearshouse, R, Cohen, J & Schleifer, R 2013,
143'Compulsory drug detention centers in China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos:
Health and human rights abuses,' Health and Human Rights, vol. 15, no. 2, pp.
124-137.

Ortiz, F 2014, 'Face of Slave Labour Changing in Brazil,' Inter Press
152
Service, 30 April. Available from: http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/04/face-slave-Endnotes

273

labour-changing-brazil/. [12 February 2018].
161
Gill, F, Phull, G M & Chachar, A 2017, 'Work Related Factors
Affecting the Wellbeing of Carpet Weaving Children in Punjab, Pakistan'.
Journal of Grassroot, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 228-236. Available from: http://sujo.
usindh.edu.pk/index.php/Grassroots/article/view/3259/2365. [13 March 2018].
153
Richardson, B 2017, 'Forced Labour in the Global Sugar Industry,'
Think Development, 24 February. Available from: https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/
po901/entry/forced_labour_in/. [12 February 2018].
162
Anjum, F, Zafar, M, Maann, A & Ahmad, M 2015, 'Work Related
Factors Affecting the wellbeing of carpet weaving children in Punjab, Pakistan,’
Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1085-1096.
Verité 2012, Research on Indicators of Forced Labour in the supply
154
chain of Sugar in the Dominican Republic. Available from: https://www.verite.
org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Research-on-Indicators-of-Forced-Labor-inthe-Dominican-Republic-Sugar-Sector_9.18.pdf. [12 February 2018].
Kwang-Jin, K 2016, Gulag, Inc: The Use of Forced Labor in North
163
Korea's Export Industries, Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.
Available from: https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/KKJ_Gulag_INC_FinalFinal_
WEB.pdf. [6 February 2018].
155
Nunes, A 2016, 'Life in the Dominican Republic’s Sugar Fields:
Resistance from the Bateyes,' Journal of Pedagody, Pluralism and Practice, vol.
8, no. 1.

156
Free the Slaves 2013, Congo’s Mining Slaves: Enslavement at
South Kivu Mining Sites. Available from: https://www.freetheslaves.net/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/Congos-Mining-Slaves-web-130622.pdf. [13 February2018].

157
Kelly, J, Greenberg, N, Sabet, D & Fulp, J 2014, Assessment of
Human Trafficking in Artisanal Mining Towns in Eastern Democratic Republicof The Congo, Social Impact. Available from: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/
PA00K5R1.pdf. [13 February 2018].

164
Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea 2014, Report of the Detailed Findings of theCommission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republicof Korea, United Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/108/71/PDF/G1410871.
pdf?OpenElement. [15 December 2017].

165
Breuker, R & van Gardingen, I [Forthcoming], Pervasive, punitiveand predetermined: Understanding modern slavery in North Korea.

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan 2014, State of Human
166
Rights in 2013. Available from: http://www.hrcp-web.org/hrcpweb/report14/
AR2013.pdf. [14 February 2018].
158
Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea 2014, Report of the Detailed Findings of theCommission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republicof Korea, United Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/108/71/PDF/G1410871.
pdf?OpenElement. [15 December 2017]. Kwang-Jin, K 2016, Gulag, Inc: The
Use of Forced Labor in North Korea's Export Industries, Committee for Human
Rights in North Korea. Available from: https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/
KKJ_Gulag_INC_FinalFinal_WEB.pdf. [6 February 2018].

159
Verité 2013, Risk Analysis of Indicators of Forced Labor and Human
Trafficking in Illegal Gold Mining in Peru. Available from: http://www.verite.org/
wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Indicators-of-Forced-Labor-in-Gold-Mining-inPeru_0.pdf. [16 December 2017].

160
Kara, S 2014, Tainted Carpets- Slavery and Child Labor in India’s
Hand Made Carpet Sector, FXB Center for Health and Human Rights. Available
from: https://cdn2.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/01/
Tainted-Carpets-Released-01-28-14.pdf. [13 February 2018].

167
SPARC 2013, Coal Mines in Balochistan. Available from: http://www.
sparcpk.org/2015/Publications/Coal-Mines-in-Balochistan.pdf. [14 February2018].

168
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 2017, Pakistan
Country Narrative, United States Department of State. Available from: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2017/271258.htm [22 February 2018].

169
In the case of the maritime fishing industry, countries in this list
refer to flag states, i.e. countries where a vessel is registered. Ghana fishingrisk relates to inland fisheries.

274

Global Slavery Index 2018170
Surtees, R 2014, In African waters: The trafficking of Cambodian
fishers in South Africa, International Organisation for Migration and NEXUS
Institute. Available from: http://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/nexus_
africanwaters_web.pdf. [14 March 2018].

179
International Labour Organization 2013, Employment practices
and working conditions in Thailand’s fishing sector. Available from: http://www.
ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/publication/
wcms_220596.pdf. [14 February 2018].

171'African slaves on Chinese vessel in Uruguay' 2014, News 24, 22
May 2014. Available from: https://www.news24.com/World/News/Africansslaves-on-Chinese-vessel-in-Uruguay-20140521. [14 March 2018].

180
Greenpeace Southeast Asia 2016, Turn the tide: Human rights
abuses and illegal fishing in Thailand’s overseas fishing industry. Available
from: http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/PageFiles/745330/Turn-The-Tide.pdf.
[14 February 2018].

International Justice Mission 2016, Child Trafficking into Forced
172
Labor on Lake Volta, Ghana: A Mixed-Methods Assessment. Available from:https://www.ijm.org/sites/default/files/resources/ijm-ghana-report.pdf. [14February 2018].

181
Chantavanich, S, Laodumrongchai, S & Stringer, C 2016, 'Under the
shadow: Forced labour among sea fishers in Thailand,' Marine Policy, vol. 68,
pp. 1-7.

173
Tickler, D, Bryant, K, David, F, Forrest, J A, Gordon, E, Larsen, J
J, Meeuwig, J, Oh, B, Pauly, D, Sumaila, U R and Zeller, D, Common causes,
shared solutions: The relationship between modern slavery and the race tofish, [undergoing review for publication].

182
Environmental Justice Foundation 2015, Thailand’s seafood slaves:
Human trafficking, slavery and murder in Kantang’s fishing industry. Available
from: http://ejfoundation.org/sites/default/files/public/EJF-Thailand-SeafoodSlaves-low-res.pdf. [14 February 2018].

174
Surtees, R 2014, In African waters: The trafficking of Cambodian
fishers in South Africa, International Organisation for Migration & NEXUS
Institute. Available from: http://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/nexus_
africanwaters_web.pdf. [14 March 2018].

183
Greenpeace 2016, Made in Taiwan: Government failure and illegal,
abusive and criminal fisheries. Available from: https://storage.googleapis.com/
p4-production-content/international/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1f3e47c1taiwan-tuna-rpt-2016.pdf. [16 December 2017].

Lone, W & Barron, L 2015, 'Trawler tragedy lifts veil on illegal
175
recruitment,' Myanmar Times, 7 April. Available from: https://www.mmtimes.
com/national-news/13967-trawler-tragedy-lifts-veil-on-illegal-recruitment.html.
[14 March 2018].

International Organization for Migration 2016, Report on Human
184
Trafficking, Forced Labour and Fisheries Crime in the Indonesian Fishing
Industry. Available from: https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/country/docs/
indonesia/Human-Trafficking-Forced-Labour-and-Fisheries-Crime-in-theIndonesian-Fishing-Industry-IOM.pdf. [14 February 2018].

176
International Organization for Migration 2016, Report on Human
Trafficking, Forced Labour and Fisheries Crime in the Indonesian Fishing
Industry. Available from: https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/country/docs/
indonesia/Human-Trafficking-Forced-Labour-and-Fisheries-Crime-in-theIndonesian-Fishing-Industry-IOM.pdf. [14 February 2018].

Pocock, N S, Kiss, L, Oram, S & Zimmerman, C 2016, Labour
177
trafficking among men and boys in the greater mekong subregion: Exploitation,
violence, occupational health risks and injuries, PLOS ONE. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168500. [13 March 2018].

Issara Institute and International Justice Mission 2016, Not in178
the same boat: prevalence & patterns of labour abuse across Thailand’s
diverse fishing industry. Available from: https://docs.wixstatic.com/
ugd/5bf36e_9ec3ea47011343158f7c76fc7f14591f.pdf. [14 February 2018].

185
Sui, C 2014, 'Exploitation in Taiwan's $2bn fishing industry,'
BBC News, 10 June. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/worldasia-27498048. [14 February 2018].

186
Stringer, C, Whittaker, D H & Simmons, G 2016, 'New Zealand’s
turbulent waters: The use of forced labour in the fishing industry,' Global
Networks, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-24. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/full/10.1111/glob.12077 [14 February 2018].

187
Environmental Justice Foundation 2012, Pirate fishing exposed:
The fight against illegal fishing in West Africa and the EU. Available from:https://ejfoundation.org/films/pirate-fishing-exposed. [14 February 2018].

Endnotes

188
Verité 2017, Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in
Persons in Federal and Corporate Supply Chains: Research on Risk in 43
Commodities Worldwide. Available from: https://www.verite.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/04/EO-and-Commodity-Reports-Combined-FINAL-2017.pdf. [11December 2017].

International Justice Mission 2012, 17 Set Free from Slavery in
189
Indian Rice Mill, Trapped there for at least five years. Available from: https://www.ijm.org/news/17-set-free-slavery-indian-rice-mill-trapped-there-least-fiveyears. [14 February 2018].

190
Perappadan, B 2013, 'Freedom at last from bonded labour,' The
Hindu. Available from: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/freedom-atlast-from-bonded-labour/article5025202.ece. [14 February 2018].

191
Karen Human Rights Group 2014, Truce or Transition? Trends inhuman rights abuse and local response in Southeast Myanmar since the 2012ceasefire. Available from: http://khrg.org/sites/default/files/khrg_-_truce_or_transition_-_english.pdf. [14 February 2018].

192
The Arakan Project 2012, Forced labour still prevails: An overview
of forced labour practices in North Arakan, Burma. Available from: http://www.
burmalibrary.org/docs13/AP-Forced_Labour_prevails.pdf. [20 February 2018].

275

197
Campos, A 2017, 'Suppliers of Lowe’s in the US and Walmart in
Brazil linked to slave labor in the Amazon,' Repórter Brasil, 15 March. Available
from: http://reporterbrasil.org.br/2017/03/suppliers-of-lowes-in-the-us-andwalmart-in-brazil-linked-to-slave-labor-in-the-amazon/. [19 January 2018].

198
Sandy, M 2015, 'Heartache and suffering: slavery in Brazil,'
Aljazeera America, 18 July. Available from: http://projects.aljazeera.
com/2015/07/slavery-brazil/. [14 February 2018].

Human Rights Watch 2017, World Report 2017: North Korea.
199
Available from: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/northkorea#cfe264. [14 February 2018].

200
Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea 2014, Report of the Detailed Findings of theCommission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republicof Korea, United Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/108/71/PDF/G1410871.
pdf?OpenElement. [15 December 2017].

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2017,
201
Compilation on Peru: Report of the Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council, Working Group on
the Universal Periodic Review, Twenty-eighth session. Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/250/98/PDF/G1725098.
pdf?OpenElement. [16 December 2017].

International Labour Organization n.d., Forced labour complaint
193
mechanism. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/yangon/complaints/lang--en/index.htm. [22 February 2018].
Mujica, J 2016, 'Trabajo adolescente en la extracción de madera en202
la Amazonía peruana: explotación laboral, trabajo forzoso, trata de personas,'
R. Dir. Gar. Fund., Vitória, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 155-180.

194International Labour Organization Committee of Experts
2016, Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session(2016), Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No, 29) - Myanmar (Ratification:1955), International Labour Organization. Available from: http://www.ilo.
org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_
ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3250775,103159,Myanmar,2015. [22 February 2018].

195
UNHCR 2017, Joint Statement on the Rohingya Refugee
Crisis, 16 October. Available from: http://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/
press/2017/10/59e4c17e5/joint-statement-rohingya-refugee-crisis.html. [22February 2018].

Caliari, T & Aranha, A 2017, 'Slave labor in the Amazon: risking lives
196
to cut down the rainforest,' Repórter Brasil, 15 March. Available from: http://
reporterbrasil.org.br/2017/03/slave-labor-in-the-amazon-risking-lives-to-cutdown-the-rainforest/. [15 December 2017].

203
Mujica, J 2013, 'The microeconomics of sexual exploitation of girls
and young women in the Peruvian Amazon,' Culture, Health & Sexuality, vol. 15,
no. 2, pp. 141-152.

Verité 2012, Research on Indicators of Forced Labor in the Supply
204
Chains of Brazil-Nuts, Cattle, Corn, and Peanuts in Bolivia. Available from:https://www.verite.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Research-on-Indicators-ofForced-Labor-in-the-Bolivia-Brazil-nut-Cattle-Corn-and-Peanut-Sectors__9.19.
pdf. [20 December 2019].

Tulane University 2015, Survey Research on Child Survey Research
205
on Child Labor in West African Cocoa Growing Areas 2013/14: Final report.
Available from: http://www.childlaborcocoa.org/images/Payson_Reports/
Tulane%20University%20-%20Survey%20Research%20on%20Child%20
Labor%20in%20the%20Cocoa%20Sector%20-%2030%20July%202015.pdf. [14February 2018].

276

Global Slavery Index 2018

206
Tulane University 2009, Third Annual Report: Oversight of Publicand Private Initiatives to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor in the Cocoa
Sector in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana, 30 September. Available from: https://www.
dol.gov/ilab/projects/summaries/2009CocoaOversightReport.pdf. [23 February2018].

Tulane University 2010, Fourth Annual Report: Oversight of Public
207
and Private Initiatives to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor in the Cocoa
Sector in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana, 30 September 2010. Available from: https://www.dol.gov/ilab/projects/summaries/2010CocoaOversightReport.pdf. [23February 2018].

from: http://electronicswatch.org/en/servants-of-servers-rights-violationsand-forced-labour-in-the-supply-chain-of-ict-equipment-in-europeanuniversities_1846593.pdf. [16 December 2017].

215
China Labor Watch 2012, Samsung Factory Exploiting Child Labor:
Investigative Report on HEG Electronics (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. Samsung Supplier.
Available from: http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/upfile/2012_8_8/samsung8-27.
pdf. [19 December 2017].

216
China Labor Watch 2017, A Year of Regression in Apple’s Supply
Chain: Pursuing Profits at the Cost of Working Conditions. Available from: http://
www.chinalaborwatch.org/upfile/2017_05_03/20170517.pdf. [19 December
2017].
208
Fair Labour Association 2015, Independent External Monitoring of
Nestlé’s cocoa supply chain in Ivory Coast: 2014-2015. Available from: http://
www.fairlabor.org/sites/default/files/documents/reports/september_2015_
nestle_executive_summary.pdf. [14 February 2018].
217
Verité 2014, Forced Labor in the Production of Electronic Goods
in Malaysia: A Comprehensive Study of Scope and Characteristics. Available
from: http://www.verite.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ElectronicsMalaysia_
MigrantWorkers_WhitePaperFINAL3.pdf. [15 December 2017].
209
Farge, E & Brice, M 2015, 'Ivory Coast frees 48 child slaves, arrests
traffickers,' Thomson Reuters, 23 June. Available from: http://uk.reuters.com/
article/uk-ivorycoast-trafficking/ivory-coast-frees-48-child-slaves-arreststraffickers-idUKKBN0P300620150623. [14 February 2018].
218
Verité & Manpower Group 2012, An ethical framework for crossborder labor recruitment. Available from: https://www.verite.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/12/ethical_framework_paper.pdf. [17 December 2017].
210
Kapoor, A 2016, Children at the heart: Assessment of child labourand child slavery in Ghana’s cocoa sector and recommendations to Mondelēz
International, Embode. Available from: https://www.cocoalife.org/~/media/
CocoaLife/Files/pdf/Library/FULL_REPORT_Ghana_Mondelez_Embode_ChildrenattheHeart.pdf. [14 February 2018].

211
Tulane University 2015, Survey Research on Child Survey Researchon Child Labor in West African Cocoa Growing Areas 2013/14: Final report.
Available from: http://www.childlaborcocoa.org/images/Payson_Reports/
Tulane%20University%20-%20Survey%20Research%20on%20Child%20
Labor%20in%20the%20Cocoa%20Sector%20-%2030%20July%202015.pdf. [14February 2018].

Tulane University 2009, Third Annual Report: Oversight of Public212
and Private Initiatives to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor in the Cocoa
Sector in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana, 30 September. Available from: https://www.
dol.gov/ilab/projects/summaries/2009CocoaOversightReport.pdf. [23 February2018].

213
SwedWatch 2016, Childhood lost: Diamond mining in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and weaknesses of the Kimberley Process.
Available from: https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/
report%20Swedwatch_DRC_diamonds.pdf. [14 February 2018].

214

Good Electronics & Danwatch 2015, Servants of servers. Available

219
Pattisson, P 2016, 'Samsung and Panasonic accused over supply
chain labour abuses in Malaysia,' The Guardian, 21 November. Available from:https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/nov/21/samsungpanasonic-accused-over-supply-chain-labour-abuses-malaysia. [19 December
2017].

220
Tickler, D, Bryant, K, David, F, Forrest, J A, Gordon, E, Larsen, J
J, Meeuwig, J, Oh, B, Pauly, D, Sumaila, U R and Zeller, D, Common causes,
shared solutions: The relationship between modern slavery and the race tofish, [undergoing review for publication].

221
Pauly, D & Zeller, D (Editors) 2015, Sea Around Us Concepts,
Design and Data, Sea Around Us. Available from: www.seaaroundus.org [23July 2017].

222
Walk Free Foundation 2016, Global Slavery Index 2016. Available
from: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/download/ [23 July 2017].

223
Pauly, D & Zeller, D (Editors) 2015, Sea Around Us Concepts,
Design and Data, Sea Around Us. Available from: www.seaaroundus.org [23July 2017]; International Monetary Fund 2016, IMF World Economic Outlook

Endnotes

2016, available from: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/
weodata/index.aspx [23 July 2017].

224
Pauly, D & Zeller, D (Editors) 2015, Sea Around Us Concepts,
Design and Data, Sea Around Us. Available from: www.seaaroundus.org [23July 2017].

225

As above.

226
Sumaila, UR, Lam, V, Le, F, Swartz, W & Pauly, D 2016, ‘Global
fisheries subsidies: An updated estimate’, Marine Policy, 69. Available from:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X16000026 [4August 2018].

227
International Monetary Fund 2016, IMF World Economic Outlook
2016, available from: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/
weodata/index.aspx [23 July 2017].

228
Pauly, D & Zeller, D (Editors) 2015, Sea Around Us Concepts,
Design and Data, Sea Around Us. Available from: www.seaaroundus.org. [23July 2017].

277

278

Global Slavery Index 2018

Bamiyan Shelter Cares For Battered Afghan Women
Bamiyan, Afghanistan: Sakina sits on her bed with her son Shafiq, 18 months, at a
women’s shelter and safe house in Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Sakina spent 7 months inprison for leaving her first husand, a forced marriage, and then marrying anotherman. Shafiq was born in prison. Until women’s shelters were started, somethingthat was unknown here before 2003, a woman in an abusive marriage usually had
no one to go to for protection. The problems many battered and abused women are
confronting are deeply ingrained in a culture that has mainly been governed by tribal
law. Since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, a more concrete idea of women’s
rights has begun to take hold, promoted by the newly created Ministry of Women’s
Affairs and a small community of women’s advocates.
Photo credit: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

GLOBALSLAVERYINDEX.ORGGLOBALSLAVERYINDEX.ORG