The Global Slavery Index (GSI), which has been produced by the Walk Free Foundation in 2013, 2014 and 2016, seeks to calculate the number of victims of human trafficking (or ‘modern slavery’) in each country and to assess and rank government responses. Using the latest iteration of the Index, this article examines each of the three elements (vulnerability measurement; prevalence measurement and response measurement), making some preliminary findings about the quality of the methodology and its application under each heading. It concludes with a consideration of two broader issues: (i) the conspicuous lack of critical engagement with the Index; and (ii) what the Index reveals about the changing face of anti-trafficking/anti-slavery work—most particularly, the growing involvement of metrics-focused strategic philanthropy in defining the ‘problem’ and directing responses.

This article explores the experiences, challenges and findings of two empirical research studies examining Canada’s legal efforts to combat human trafficking. The authors outline the methodologies of their respective studies and reflect on some of the difficulties they faced in obtaining empirical data on human trafficking court cases and legal proceedings. Ultimately, the authors found that Canadian trafficking case law developments are in their early stages with very few convictions, despite a growing number of police-reported charges. The authors assert it is difficult to assess the efficacy and effects of Canadian anti-trafficking laws and policies due to the institutional and political limitations to collecting legal data in this highly politicised subject area. They conclude with five recommendations to increase the transparency of Canada’s public claims about its anti-trafficking enforcement efforts and call for more empirically-based law reform.

Response to ATR Debate Proposition: ‘Prosecuting trafficking deflects attention from much more important responses and is anyway a waste of time and money’

The topic of forced labour is receiving a growing amount of political and policy attention across the globe. This paper makes two clear contributions to emerging debates. First, we focus on a group who are seldom explicitly considered in forced labour debates: forced migrants who interact with the asylum system. We build an argument of the production of susceptibility to forced labour through the United Kingdom’s (UK) asylum system, discussing the roles of compromised socio-legal status resulting from restrictive immigration policy, neoliberal labour market characteristics and migrants’ own trajectories. Second, we argue that forced labour needs to be understood as part of, and an outcome of, widespread normalised precarious work. Precarity is a concept used to describe the rise of insecure, casualised and sub-contracted work and is useful in explaining labour market processes that are conducive to the production of forced labour. Using precarity as a lens to examine forced labour encourages the recognition of extreme forms of exploitation as part of a wider picture of systematic exploitation of migrants in the labour market. To understand the reasons why forced migrants might be drawn into severe labour exploitation in the UK, we introduce the concept of hyper-precarity to explain how multidimensional insecurities contribute to forced labour experiences, particularly among forced migrants in the global north. Viewing forced labour as connected to precarity also suggests that avenues and tools for tackling severe labour exploitation need to form part of the wider struggle for migrant labour rights.

When politicians, responding to public campaigns focused on human trafficking, make bold and over-emotive statements, invoking William Wilberforce and the pressing need to lead the global fight against slavery, the Trafficking Protocol,[1] proves its worth. Insulated from national political rhetoric, international treaties, be it the Trafficking Protocol or regional instruments, provide an invaluable structure for governments’ national legislative responses to human trafficking. As the United Kingdom’s (UK) Solicitor General noted,[2]The UK’s legal framework has been directly influencedby UN [United Nations] and EU [European Union] Conventions and Directives (emphasis added) … [and] The ‘Palermo Protocol’ continues to shape the UK’s response to human trafficking and in particular the care and support afforded to identified human trafficking victims.[1] In full: Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.[2] Speech, Solicitor General, Oliver Heald QC MP, ‘Prosecuting human trafficking and slavery: The law and the UK response’, UK Government, 12 October 2012, retrieved 6 January 2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prosecuting-human-trafficking-and-slavery-the-law-and-the-uk-response

The Trafficking Protocol[1] has shaped and advanced a global movement against human trafficking; notably through establishing a global definition and creating criminal justice remedies befitting an international crime.[2] Borne out of and including the Protocol, a global anti-trafficking framework has emerged. This framework reflects these two central tenets at international, regional and national levels and includes initiatives by States not party to the Protocol, such as Singapore. However, the emphasis on these tenets, which comprise only part of a robust anti-trafficking strategy, has rendered the existing framework insufficient to address exploitation.[1] In full: Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children[2] K H Heinrich, ‘Ten Years After the Palermo Protocol: Where are Protections for Human Trafficking?’, Human Rights Brief 18, no.1, 2010, retrieved 5 January 2015, http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=hrbrief ; K E Hyland, The Impact of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Human Rights Brief 8, no. 2, 2001, retrieved 5 January 2015, http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1492&context=hrbrief

The question: ‘What would be the best way to use ten million dollars?’ leads to many other questions when related to anti-trafficking work.What should the money be spent on? Who should be appointed to spend the money? And, perhaps most importantly, who should be the beneficiaries? In other words, are the ten million dollars to prevent trafficking of people meant for activities to stop smuggling of people, to stop unwanted migrants, or to protect and uphold people’s rights when they move across borders and need to be protected from trafficking? Would the money be best spent on anti-trafficking work, or would it be better spent on strengthening the rights of all migrants to minimise the risk of trafficking?

This Issue—Following the Money: Spending on anti-traffickingThis edition of the Anti-Trafficking Review explores what happens to the money that is allocated by governments and private donors to stop human trafficking and to assist people who have been trafficked.It has been an honour to play the role of guest editor, though it has not been easy to steer a route between amazement (at the sums apparently involved), concern (at the lack of real insight into how money is allocated and spent) and cynicism (at what appear to be rather modest achievements).It was challenging for potential authors to choose a method of analysing anti-trafficking spending. Should they simply describe what money is available and the drawbacks of the ways which donors make it available to organisations to use? Some authors take this descriptive approach. Should articles be about the efficiency and effectiveness of aid flows in general, in which case the shortcomings in anti-trafficking funding may mirror the generic flaws in aid flows? Only one author (Ucnikova) has tackled this. Or, should studies focus on the way the purse strings are controlled by a small number of donors who appear poorly informed about the needs of trafficked persons or the factors that cause them to be trafficked? Several of the articles touch on this (e.g. those of Hoff and Nwogu).Early on, it became apparent to the editorial team that people working for large organisations with anti-trafficking programmes were wary of contributing articles on this topic. In this sense, although the Anti-Trafficking Review aims to promote public debate, we have not yet found the best way of opening up a debate about funding, for practitioners evidently fear that writing about their own sources of funding could result in the tap being turned off! So, it is mainly the Debate section that tackles the question of funding strategies. Even these contributions do not make assessments of the various actors involved (donors and the organisations they fund) in as full and frank a way as is needed.The articles in this edition represent a start on the topic of anti-trafficking funding, but a great deal remains to be explored.

On 26 September 2013, Humanity United, with our partners Legatum Foundation and Walk Free, announced the creation of the USD 100 million Freedom Fund to combat human trafficking around the world. This fund is the first of its kind, organised by three private foundations and borne in part from Humanity United’s experience as a donor over the past decade, during which time we provided more than USD 50 million to fund anti-trafficking efforts globally.During this time, we also worked closely with the donor community as well as organisations and activists working on the frontlines of the struggle to end human trafficking. Over this period, four themes have emerged that help us better understand how to more effectively work and provide grants to combat human trafficking.