EU support to fight human trafficking in South/ South-East Asia

Executive summary

I

Trafficking in human beings is a highly profitable crime, a gross violation of human rights and a global security threat. While fighting human trafficking remains the Member States’ responsibility, the EU is also committed to eradicating it and has adopted several actions to support Member States in this regard.

II

While human trafficking is a global problem from which no country is immune, the EU is particularly vulnerable as it is an attractive destination for victims from a wide range of countries. Asia, the world’s most populous region, is a significant region of origin for victims of transregional trafficking. Human trafficking cannot be isolated from poverty, education and health access, gender discrimination or minority injustices. It is commonly accepted that poverty, gender discrimination and conflict are among the most important root causes of trafficking.

III

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty reinforced the Commission’s role in coordinating and steering the EU response. A Directive was adopted in 2011 and a human-trafficking strategy (THB Strategy 2012-2016) was issued shortly after. This strategy is complemented by a number of other policy documents which, taken as a whole, set out the EU’s approach to fight human trafficking. A post-2016 anti-trafficking strategy has not yet been presented.

IV

In this report, we examine the effectiveness of EU support for the fight against human trafficking in South/South-East Asia. The audit examined the comprehensiveness of the EU’s approach to fighting human trafficking in relation to these regions and whether EU human trafficking projects in South/South-East Asia during the 2009-2015 period contributed effectively to the fight against human trafficking.

V

Eradicating human trafficking is necessarily a long term process. It requires addressing a number of root causes (e.g. gender inequality, poverty, minority rights, education and health) and disrupting the activities of criminal networks. Human trafficking is by nature a clandestine crime, for which sufficient and comparable statistical data is rarely available. Given this complex context, numerous widespread priorities and limited resources, we found that the EU was partially effective in supporting the fight against human trafficking in South/South-East Asia.

VI

The EU’s human trafficking policy framework provides for a comprehensive approach to addressing human trafficking, although some aspects are not yet fully developed or relevant to South/South-East Asia. The Commission and the EEAS use a variety of tools in fighting human trafficking, either directly or indirectly: human rights dialogues are particularly useful; other tools include bilateral dialogues and support to regional fora (i.e. ASEAN and ASEM in Asia). So far no new partnerships dedicated to combat human trafficking have been created between the EU and any of the countries in South/South-East Asia.

VII

Despite specific weaknesses, most of the examined projects in South/South-East Asia produced some positive results in the fight against human trafficking, although sustainability was a concern. Since 2009, the fight against human trafficking in the regions has improved overall, although there are significant differences between countries and it is difficult to link overall development to the results achieved by specific EU actions. The framework for selecting projects did not facilitate a comprehensive approach and project design had weaknesses, particularly in the formulation of objectives and indicators. Furthermore, implementation was hampered by local constraints and delays.

VIII

On the basis of the audit, we recommend that the Commission, in coordination with the EEAS, should:

• Develop the human trafficking strategic framework further, by making it more relevant to South/South-East Asia
• Optimise the impact of projects by integrating them into a comprehensive framework.

Introduction

Background information: Trafficking in human beings

01

Trafficking in human beings is a serious crime and a gross violation of human rights. Victims are exploited in their own countries or abroad for the benefit of traffickers. No country is immune to the phenomenon, whether as a country of origin, transit and/or destination for victims. Human trafficking has become a global security threat as reflected in assessments made by the EU, UN and the US¹.

02

There is broad consensus on the need to eradicate human trafficking. 170 countries² have ratified the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime which was adopted in 2000 (the Palermo Protocol). The Palermo Protocol was the first international legally binding instrument with an agreed definition of human trafficking.

03

Human trafficking involves the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purposes of exploitation³. Human trafficking has a strong gender dimension (i.e. most victims are women and girls). This need to be considered when designing support measures. Forced labour and sexual exploitation are the most prevalent types of exploitation worldwide. Other types of human exploitation are child labour, organ removal and forced marriage.

04

Human trafficking, as other crimes, is a clandestine activity which is difficult to observe and measure. When borders are crossed, trafficking often occurs from less developed countries to more developed countries. The majority of victims are trafficked within the border of their own countries (42 %) or regions (36 %) and often victims and traffickers come from the same place, speak the same language or have the same ethnic background. Human trafficking cannot be isolated from poverty, education and health access, gender discrimination or minority injustices. It is commonly accepted that poverty, gender discrimination and conflict are among the most important root causes of the problem.

05

Human trafficking has been facilitated by economic globalisation. The wide market access for cheap labour and cheap products multiply the opportunities for traffickers to benefit from the exploitation of vulnerable victims. Globalisation has thus increased the probability that consumers of goods and services are indirectly connected to human trafficking, for instance to the child being forced to stitch football balls, to the migrant compelled to work as a fisherman in slave-like conditions and to the teenager who runs away from home and ends up a victim of sex trafficking near a tourist destination.

06

These factors explain the media attention given to the problem of human trafficking worldwide. In 2016, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service was awarded to a group of journalists who did an international investigation of the fishing industry in Southeast Asia which led to the freeing of more than 2000 slaves. The seafood they caught could be traced to supermarkets and pet food providers in developed countries.

07

Indeed, human trafficking is a highly profitable crime. The European Police Office (Europol) estimates that annual proceeds from human trafficking exceed 29 billion euro⁴. While a lack of reliable statistics makes it difficult to ascertain the extent of human trafficking, it is estimated that 46 million people are trapped in situations of modern slavery⁵.

08

Asia, the most populous region in the world, has an estimated two thirds of the total number of people living in modern slavery. Asia is also a significant region of origin for victims of transregional trafficking⁶. Media exposure of situations of human trafficking has focused attention on the fight against human trafficking in the region by national governments, international organisations, civil society and donors.

09

Addressing human trafficking is a long term endeavour. It requires changes in attitudes, application of the rule of law and a strong civil society. Sustainability of human rights-driven projects is always a challenge as it often requires continuous support by donors and building up a national commitment to maintain the achieved results. Moreover, human trafficking flows and practices are dynamic and adaptable to law-enforcement initiatives. As it is common for other human rights issues, only in the long term will it be possible to assess whether actions implemented have contributed to its eradication.

The EU’s role and players in the fight against human trafficking beyond the EU’s borders

10

An EU strategic framework for combating human trafficking in third countries was introduced in 2009 when the Council adopted the Action-Oriented Paper on strengthening the EU external dimension against trafficking in human beings⁷. This document called for coordinated action by the EU and the Member States to prevent and fight human trafficking in partnership with third countries, regions and organisations at international level. This approach was confirmed by the broader multiannual programme regarding the areas of freedom, security and justice for 2010-2014 (‘the Stockholm programme’)⁸.

11

The Treaty of Lisbon extended the EU method to areas that previously came under the police and judicial cooperation pillar⁹, a change which increased the Commission’s role in fighting human trafficking. Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims¹⁰ (the Directive) repeats the call for a comprehensive EU approach combining the internal and external dimensions. The Directive calls on Member States to facilitate the work of the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator to contribute to ‘a coordinated and consolidated Union strategy’.

12

In 2012 the Commission adopted the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012-2016 (the THB Strategy). This set the overall policy framework and identified five priorities the EU should focus on: protecting victims, preventing exploitation of vulnerable persons, prosecuting traffickers, enhancing coordination and cooperation, and knowledge-sharing. The THB Strategy included 40 actions to be implemented by EU institutions and Member States. A post-2016 anti-trafficking strategy is yet to be presented (as of April 2017).

13

There is no EU funding instrument that specifically targets human trafficking. That means that funding is provided by a dispersed range of instruments, from security-driven programmes to purely development instruments. Each instrument has a different legal basis; while some instruments include tackling human trafficking as one specific objective others make reference to broader issues like the fight against organised crime, application of the rule of law or illegal migration.

14

Overall, this means that it is difficult to produce comprehensive data about the overall funding granted by the EU to address human trafficking¹¹. A 2016 Commission report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings¹² notes that the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO) funded 53 projects between 2011 and 2013 for approximately 37 million euro. It does not provide information on projects managed by the Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR) or the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments, nor information on whether funding managed by the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs benefited third countries.

15

As regards South/South-East Asia, DG DEVCO is the main department responsible for managing development assistance. The most important instruments used by DG DEVCO to support human trafficking projects are the Development and Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).

Audit scope and approach

16

The EU’s response to human trafficking can take many forms, e.g. financial assistance, policy dialogue or multilateral actions¹³. The EU has therefore the opportunity to draw on a full range of tools, instruments and resources to make its external action to fight human trafficking more consistent, more effective and more strategic. This is referred to as the EU comprehensive approach, which also addresses the shared responsibility of EU institutions and Member States¹⁴.

17

We decided to focus the audit on the regions of South and South-East Asia because of the pervasiveness of human trafficking in these regions and the priorities expressed by the Council. The 2016 Global Slavery Index found that there are nearly 46 million victims of human trafficking worldwide, nearly two-thirds in/from Asia; South and South-East Asia¹⁵ together include a relatively large number of countries identified by the Council as human trafficking priorities.

18

The audit examined whether EU support for the fight against human trafficking in South/South-East Asia has been effective. For the purpose of this assessment, the audit answered the following sub-questions:

1. Did the EU have a comprehensive approach to human trafficking in South/South-East Asia?
2. Did EU projects contribute effectively to addressing human trafficking in South/South-East Asia?

19

We identified and examined all human trafficking-related projects implemented in South/South-East Asia over the 2009-2015 period (see Annex I) with total funding of 31 million euro. 2009 was the year when EU adopted its first strategic framework for combatting human trafficking in third countries (the Action-Oriented Paper, see paragraph 10). The Commission provided us with a list of human trafficking projects in South/South-East Asia (22 projects for a total of 13 million euro) which we complemented with additional projects in South/South-East Asia which have a clear relation to human trafficking (13 additional projects for a total of 18 million euro). The 35 projects covered ten of the 19 countries in these regions¹⁶.

20

Our audit work consisted of a desk review of Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS) documentation, interviews of staff from the Commission and the EEAS, and an audit visit to Thailand which is the main centre of UN activity in Asia and the Pacific. The objective of the mission was to collect further information and interview staff of the EU delegation, representatives of national authorities, beneficiaries, other donors and civil society organisations. The mission also served to meet representatives of the regional headquarters of relevant UN agencies.

Observations

The EU human trafficking policy framework largely provides for a comprehensive approach to address human trafficking, although some aspects are not yet fully developed

The EU human trafficking policy framework is set out in a number of interlinked documents

21

In this section, we examine whether the EU has based its strategy on relevant and reliable data on human trafficking; has set targets, as well as clear and relevant priorities covering criminal and human rights aspects; and has addressed human trafficking as a priority in the national human rights strategies.

The THB Strategy is a high level document which provides limited guidance on the external dimension of the fight against human trafficking

22

The preparation of the human trafficking strategy lacked sufficient and comparable statistical data. Besides the inherent difficulties of obtaining data on any criminal activity¹⁷, there is no human trafficking intelligence-sharing with countries in South/South-East Asia.

23

The THB Strategy includes 40 actions, split between the five priorities (protecting victims, prevention, prosecuting traffickers, enhancing coordination and cooperation, and knowledge-sharing). Only one of the 40 actions deals with the external dimension of the fight against human trafficking. As of April 2017 the Commission has not published a comprehensive evaluation of the results achieved under the THB Strategy; nor has it presented a post-2016 anti-trafficking policy framework¹⁸.

24

The THB Strategy did not include specific objectives and targets, which would have been helpful for preparing focused actions on the ground and evaluating the results achieved. The THB Strategy also stated that ‘a list of priority third countries and regions for future partnerships should be developed. Cooperation mechanisms in EU delegations on trafficking in human beings could be considered in priority third countries and regions in 2013 in order to strengthen cooperation, create partnerships and improve coordination and coherence’.

25

In December 2012, the Council agreed on such a list of priority regions and countries, based on a proposal by the Commission¹⁹. When considering the limited funding involved, we found that the geographical prioritisation was not sufficiently specific for guiding action as most developing countries were included either individually or as part of a geographical region. Furthermore, no follow up was done on the results achieved by this approach. This also included no regular update or confirmation whether the geographical priorities were still relevant. As regards South/South-East Asia, geographical priorities include Vietnam, the Silk route region²⁰ (in particular India) and South-East Asian countries (in particular Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and the Philippines).

The THB Strategy is complemented by other policy documents

26

Human trafficking is a complex phenomenon which can be addressed from different angles. As regards the human rights perspective, relevant documents to complement the EU approach to human trafficking are the European Agenda on Migration; the European Agenda on Security; the EU Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling 2015-2020; the Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2015-2019; the new framework for the EU’s activities on gender equality and women’s empowerment in the EU’s external relations for 2016-2020 and the EU’s Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality 2016-2019.

27

The EU is committed to promoting human rights in all areas of its external action without exception²¹. When working with bilateral partners, the EU’s preferred mechanism is to develop tailor-made approaches which are reflected in local human-rights country strategies²². These strategies are designed to be mainstreamed by the EU and the Member States, serve as basis for human rights dialogue and are regularly followed up by EU delegations and headquarters in annual progress reports and reviews.

28

The EU has developed human rights strategies for all the countries covered by the audit. The Member States have actively contributed to these strategies from the preparation to the endorsement stage. Member State involvement included representatives to the Council’s Asia-Oceania Working Party (COASI) and the Working Party on Human Rights (COHOM) which are the working groups responsible for dealing with Asia or with human rights in general²³. The participation of both working groups safeguarded regional and thematic consistency.

29

Human trafficking issues are generally included in human rights strategies in a manner which the EEAS considers most appropriate and acceptable for the EU and the counterpart country, ensuring an efficient balance between human trafficking and other priority issues. The human rights strategies that we reviewed adequately addressed relevant human trafficking issues in the sections dealing with women, children or minority rights.

30

As regards the fight against human trafficking as a crime, this perspective was primarily addressed by the 2013 EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment report which identified trafficking in human beings as a key threat to the EU (an assessment confirmed in 2017²⁴). This led to the approval by the Council of a human trafficking-specific Multi-Annual Strategic Plan as well as yearly Operational Action Plans. These documents address the criminal perspective of human trafficking, which is not covered by the THB Strategy. They focus on the law enforcement aspect of the fight against human trafficking in Europe and therefore include a limited number of actions in third countries. None of these actions pertain to countries in South/South-East Asia.

The EU policy framework is supported by a variety of tools: Human rights dialogue is particularly useful, while other tools could be used more to fight human trafficking in South/South-East Asia

31

In this section, we examine whether the use of various tools (including programming, coordination and human rights dialogue) facilitated comprehensive action. We also assess whether human trafficking-partnerships were concluded with third countries, regions and international organisations in South/South-East Asia.

The EU provided financial assistance to fight human trafficking in South/South-East Asia, but the programming did not include an overall rationale and direction and was not used to its full potential

32

There is no EU funding instrument that specifically targets human trafficking. This means that existing instruments need to be used in a coordinated way to fund activities in this area. The audited projects were funded through the Development and Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) which are able to fund activities linked to the human rights dimension of human trafficking in South/South-East Asia. The Commission is currently reviewing these external financing instruments (the mid-term evaluations of the DCI and EIDHR) which is expected to be finalised mid 2017.

33

The Commission, EEAS and Member States participate in the definition of aid strategies, priorities and allocations of financial instruments through the programming process. All the reviewed countries included at least one strategy paper adopted after the THB Strategy. The programming documents for the 10 countries covered by the audit did not include any references to the THB Strategy or the Council geographical priorities.

34

Furthermore, there are no comprehensive data on EU financial support provided for the fight against human trafficking in the 2009-2015 period²⁵. The Commission maintains a database of human trafficking projects (the anti-trafficking website database). However, we found that the database was not complete as a source of information on funding. Thus, it cannot efficiently support relevant decision-makers and practitioners in setting priorities and steering actions. This is due to the lack of clear criteria defining what constitutes a human trafficking-relevant action (see Annex III)²⁶. This means that we cannot assess whether the distribution of funds between regions is in line with the Council priorities.

35

Most of the EU financial support to the fight against human trafficking in South/South-East Asia is done through EU grants (see paragraph 46). In 2014, the Commission formally instructed EU delegations to increase the minimum grant size for national calls for proposals in order to reduce the number of contracts²⁷. The Commission expects that working with larger and more professional NGOs will ensure better management and better design. However, this decision does not fully recognise that the number of NGOs active in the fight against human trafficking varies from country to country and it may be difficult, in some countries, to form groups with the necessary experience.

Human rights dialogue has proven to be a useful tool for addressing human trafficking

36

Development assistance instruments can address human trafficking from a human rights perspective. One of the most important EU tools for promoting human rights is regular dialogues with partner countries. These dialogues are diplomatic tools which facilitate the discussion of sensitive human rights issues. The effectiveness of human rights dialogue resides in its capacity to feed other policy areas, such as development cooperation and trade, and higher level political dialogues.

37

Policy dialogue can be facilitated with concrete support through technical assistance instruments: the Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument and the Policy Dialogue Support Facility.

38

The EU pursues human rights dialogues with over 40 countries, including the 10 countries in South/South-East Asia covered by this audit. These dialogues are established in accordance with the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues, which give the EU delegations an important role in the preparation, implementation and communication phases. For the 10 countries covered by the audit, human rights dialogue has been held at regular intervals, providing the EU with opportunities to raise relevant human trafficking issues. The internal reporting on the discussions held during human rights dialogue is used by the EEAS as a reference for EIDHR programming.

39

Before each dialogue, the EU position is established by the EEAS departments responsible for the respective region and human rights. This often requires topics to be prioritised. For all 10 countries, there was at least one dialogue which included at least one aspect related to human trafficking. We found that the participation of the relevant EEAS human rights departments at headquarters facilitated consistency between multilateral human trafficking initiatives and the EU’s strategic human rights objectives for countries in South/South-East Asia.

The EU has supported regional initiatives at the highest level, but has not yet entered into dedicated partnerships to fight human trafficking with any of the countries in South/South-East Asia

40

A key EU partner in the region is the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) which the Council considers ‘the major contributor for stability in the Asia-Pacific region’²⁸. In this context, the EU has previously supported the development of an ASEAN human rights mechanism and the establishment of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. A legally binding ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, was approved at the 27th ASEAN summit in 2015²⁹. Following the ratification by the minimum six countries³⁰, the Convention entered into force in March 2017.

41

The Bali Process is an initiative to address specific people-smuggling, human-trafficking, and irregular-migration issues in the region. It is steered by Indonesia and Australia and has more than 48 members, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UNODC. The Commission and 12 EU Member States participate as observers. Although the Bali Process has mainly focused on migration issues (it has a roster of migration experts, but no roster of human trafficking experts), it established a Working Group on Trafficking in Persons which met for the first time in March 2015.

42

The absence of a strong community of experts on the fight against human trafficking has affected the promotion of knowledge sharing. The Commission prepared a list of human trafficking focal points³¹, but it was not complete (Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Thailand were not included). These focal points were given only initial training and information packages. EU delegations made use of the existing structures of human rights focal points. While this made sense from an efficiency point of view, it meant that less specialised anti-trafficking expertise was developed.

43

All the countries in South/South-East Asia are parties to the Palermo Protocol (see paragraph 2), with the exception of Bangladesh, Bhutan, Laos and Nepal³². The THB Strategy calls for the use of partnerships to combat human trafficking beyond the EU’s borders. The EU has longstanding relations and partnership with the ASEAN and Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) fora, in addition to bilateral dialogues. The EU uses these fora as structures for combatting human trafficking. So far no new partnerships dedicated to combat human trafficking have been created between the EU and any of the countries in South/South-East Asia.

Despite identified weaknesses, most human trafficking projects produced positive results, although sustainability was a concern

The framework for selecting projects did not facilitate a comprehensive approach and project design had weaknesses, particularly in the formulation of objectives and indicators

44

In this section, we examine whether the projects were consistent with EU policy strategy priorities and actions, whether the projects had adequate objectives and indicators³³ and whether design weaknesses were addressed by the Commission in good time.

Projects were consistent with the overall THB Strategy, but were treated as one-off exercises

45

We found that all the 35 human trafficking related projects we examined were consistent with the THB Strategy (approved in 2012); the relevant EU country strategy and country human rights strategy; and programming documents for specific aid instruments. Projects were predominantly geared towards human rights aspects and consistently emphasised the rights and welfare of women and children.

46

Projects were selected primarily by calls for proposals (32 out of 35 projects). Proposals were evaluated and compared with other proposals submitted in response to the same call for proposals. The comparison mechanism aimed to select the best project proposal in each call, but did not consider possible synergies and interaction with other projects or tools.

47

By selecting projects through calls, each selection was a one-off exercise where the Commission had limited opportunity (in terms of time and guidance³⁴) to ensure that its portfolio of projects addressed all the five priorities stated in the THB Strategy (see paragraph 22). We found that none of the sample projects concentrated primarily on prosecution or knowledge-sharing, while the majority concentrated on prevention and/or protection (31 projects in total). Only one project³⁵ addressed the criminal component of human trafficking, including activities to empower law-enforcement officials to fight human trafficking crimes by detecting and disrupting criminal networks.

Many projects had weak objectives and/or indicators

48

Many projects (23) had problems with the definition of their objectives and/or indicators³⁶. The objectives were often not specific or measurable enough (14 and 8 projects, respectively). Indicators were particularly weak in terms of robustness, credibility and ease of use, and were occasionally quantified in a way which was not meaningful.

49

Although 21 projects planned baseline studies, the effectiveness and value-added of these studies were mixed. In two cases, the baselines were not useful for the internal monitoring system or for improving the intervention logframe because they were too late, not detailed enough or not fully in line with the project indicators³⁸. However, for four projects (Bangladesh1, Bangladesh3, Nepal2 and Nepal3) the baselines were ready at the beginning of the project and served as a useful point of departure for monitoring and evaluating project results.

Some project design weaknesses were not corrected by the Commission in good time, in particular before signing the grant contract

50

Risks and lessons learnt were reflected in the design of most projects but only seven projects assessed risk likelihood scenarios (i.e. the likelihood of occurrence and the impact if materialised)³⁹. For several projects, logframe weaknesses were noted by the evaluators⁴⁰ at the proposal stage but were not fully taken on board when the project was implemented.

1. In the case of Indonesia1, one of the evaluators of the full proposal drew attention to weak indicators, but this was not reflected in the evaluation report and the indicators were not modified.
2. The evaluators of project Philippines2 commented that the formulation of specific objectives was weak (‘just a plethora of activities, very similar to expected results’); however, this was not addressed before the grant contract was signed.
3. The evaluator for Nepal3 noted that there was ‘no baseline survey or benchmarking’ and that ‘the logframe should be redesigned with adequate quantitative indicators’. In this case the baseline survey was done as a project activity and the logframe was revised by the time of the second interim report; however, some of the indicators remained unquantifiable and subjective⁴¹.

51

In one case (project Bangladesh5) the EU delegation addressed the weak logframe while the project was being implemented and asked the beneficiary to correct it. However, the changes were made only six months before the project ended in April 2016; meaning that the delegation’s intervention came too late (project duration was three years).

52

The expected results of most projects were reasonably realistic at the design stage⁴². However, there were exceptions:

1. In Bangladesh1, during the discussions of a project extension with the Commission, it became clear that the project design was too ambitious, especially with regard to the use of a database. As the project was carried out in remote areas, the unavailability of electricity and internet connectivity issues were important barriers to successful implementation of project activities, a fact which was underestimated at the project’s design stage.
2. Several cancelled activities included in project India1 were overambitious at the design stage: the project intended to review expected legal amendments which had already been repeatedly postponed (since 2004), and which were not adopted during the implementation of the project (2011-2014).

Project implementation was hampered by local constraints and delays

53

In this section, we examine, among other things, whether the Commission monitored the projects adequately and reacted to unexpected changes in a timely manner and whether projects were implemented according to plan (time, budget and activities).

The Commission monitored the projects adequately, but implementation was affected by limited ownership at national level, changes in the sequence of activities by partners and delays

54

We found that projects were adequately monitored by the Commission which carried out field visits for 26 projects and ‘results oriented monitoring’⁴³ for four projects. Generally, the Commission took timely corrective action to support the smooth implementation of the projects⁴⁴. However, we found that the ongoing assessment of sustainability for 14 projects was weak (see paragraph 66), even though, at least in some cases, this was already clear at the design stage.

55

As of July 2016, 27 of the 35 projects had been completed. However, the implementation period for 10 projects⁴⁵ was extended by between three and twelve months. Half of the extensions were related to external factors such as late approvals by authorities, political unrest and security concerns; the other half were explained by internal project constraints related to the partners’ capacity.

56

Eight projects were subject to a change in the logical order of their activities. These changes affected the execution of related activities, meaning that it was not possible to exploit the full potential for synergies. We found that baseline studies and assessments were not available when needed, training activities took place too late and the prioritisation of related activities was not ideal.

57

In 10 of the cases⁴⁶ we examined, some important activities had not been carried out as planned. This was due to a lack of commitment, either from the government (five cases), the implementing partner (four cases) or both (one case), see Box 3.

Budget implementation was hampered by the local partners’ limited capacity

58

We found seven cases of significant underspending and five other cases where budget consumption required time extensions⁴⁷. Grant contracts set the maximum EU contribution and underspending is not necessarily negative, especially if all expected results are achieved. However, when the budget of a selected proposal has been significantly overestimated, and this is not corrected before a contract is drawn up, the Commission cannot take full advantage of the call for proposals (and available funds) to support other projects. In some cases, we found the partners’ initial proposal was unrealistic (too ambitious/overestimated) compared to their capacity. For example:

1. For one project (Regional1) only 65 % of the original budget was used. The lead implementing partner agreed that many budget lines were initially overestimated (in particular, for equipment and campaign expenditure)⁴⁸.
2. Nearly half of the contract value of project India3 had not been utilised by the original end-date of the project, partly because long-term victim-assistance activities were covered by potentially more attractive (longer-term, more targeted) State financing.
3. Project Regional2, the project needed two time extensions (from 36 to 48 months) to consume 90 % of the planned EU contribution⁴⁹.

Projects produced some positive results in the fight against human trafficking, although sustainability was a concern

59

In this section, we examine whether: planned outputs were/are delivered in a timely manner and within budget; projects have made a positive contribution to eradicating human trafficking; and project results are sustainable.

The projects produced some positive results in the area of human trafficking, but it is difficult to link these to the overall improvement of the fight against human trafficking in the region

60

Since 2009, the fight against human trafficking in the regions covered by the audit has improved overall, although there are significant differences between countries with only two fully meeting best standards. According to data from the US ‘Trafficking in Persons’ report (see Table 1), the countries which have improved are Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, the Philippines and Pakistan; four countries remain unchanged (Indonesia, Nepal, Myanmar and Vietnam); and only in one country (Thailand) did the situation deteriorate in the period covered by the audit.

Table 1

Sample countries’ efforts to fight human trafficking based on US ‘Trafficking in Persons’ (TIP) report

Country	2009		2010		2011		2012		2013		2014		2015		2016
Cambodia	2WL		2		2		2		2WL		2WL		2WL		2
Indonesia	2		2		2		2		2		2		2		2
Nepal	2		2		2		2		2		2		2		2
Myanmar	3		3		3		2WL		2WL		2WL		2WL		3
Thailand	2		2WL		2WL		2WL		2WL		3		3		2WL
Vietnam	2		2WL		2WL		2		2		2		2		2
India	2WL		2WL		2		2		2		2		2		2
Philippines	2WL		2WL		2		2		2		2		2		1
Pakistan	2WL		2		2		2		2		1		1		1
Bangladesh	2WL		2WL		2WL		2		2		2		2		2

Note: The US ‘Trafficking in Persons’ report (US TIP report) places countries in four categories: Tier 1 (fully meeting standards), Tier 2 (not fully meeting standards but significant efforts are being made), Tier 2 Watch List (2WL, same as Tier 2 but impact is aggravated due to number of victims, failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts or commitments not being respected) and Tier 3 (not meeting standards).

Source: U.S. Department of State ‘Trafficking in Persons Report’, 2016.

61

We found that for all the projects examined, we were able to identify some positive project results in the area of human trafficking which contribute to the fight against human trafficking. We also found that EU support, in particular targeted EIDHR funding, has helped to strengthen community-based NGOs dedicated to fighting human trafficking. Nevertheless, these results cannot be linked to the overall progress on the fight against human trafficking in the regions concerned. Moreover, it is difficult to identify the impact of human rights-driven initiatives, as they are supporting long-term changes which by their nature are often difficult to measure.

62

A good example of how EU support can contribute to a long-term change in attitudes and local engagement is project Indonesia1. This project served to consolidate an emerging coalition of local NGOs active in the fight against human trafficking by building the coalition’s capacity as well as improving its international visibility and outreach. As a result, the coalition was able to provide relevant input on human trafficking challenges in the context of the UN-led periodic review of the human rights record of Indonesia⁵⁰.

63

Similarly, Cambodia2 and Cambodia3 were projects implemented by a coalition of national NGOs. The two projects have contributed to increase the coalition’s visibility, capacity and outreach with the result that the coalition and its members have improved their project management skills and have managed to continue to receive donor support for some of their activities.

64

As described above (see paragraph 47), selecting projects by calls for proposals provided limited scope for the Commission to integrate projects into a comprehensive approach. Nevertheless, we identified one project which managed to link development assistance with other EU policy tools (see Box 4). Other donors are also addressing human trafficking by adopting a comprehensive approach which incorporates different types of support⁵¹.

Sustainability of project results was not systematically ensured

65

We were able to assess the sustainability prospects of 25 projects⁵³. For the remaining 10 projects, the project was either ongoing, the final report had not yet been approved or was insufficiently detailed. We found that sustainability can be demonstrated for 11 projects. For the remaining 14 projects, insufficient further contributions by donors (eight projects) and insufficient commitment by partners or government (six projects) are likely to affect sustainability.

66

For the 14 projects where sustainability was uncertain, we found that the underlying factors affecting sustainability could have been better addressed at the design stage. In particular, projects did not include an exit strategy for the handover of project practices and delivered outputs as recommended by the Commission Guidelines on Project Cycle Management⁵⁴, and exogenous factors/threats were not sufficiently mitigated and therefore persisted during the implementation phase. The Commission’s ongoing assessment of sustainability was also hampered by insufficient documentation on the impact of changes during implementation.

67

We did find a good example of a sustainable project, which illustrates the benefits of addressing sustainability issues early in the design phase (see Box 6).

Conclusions and recommendations

68

The audit examined the effectiveness of EU support for the fight against human trafficking in South/South-East Asia. Eradicating human trafficking is necessarily a long term process. It requires addressing a number of root causes (e.g. gender inequality, poor minority rights, education and health) and disrupting the activities of criminal networks. Human trafficking is by nature a clandestine crime, for which sufficient and comparable statistical data is rarely available. Given this complex context, numerous widespread priorities and limited resources, we found that the EU was partially effective in supporting the fight against human trafficking in South/South-East Asia.

69

The EU human trafficking policy framework largely provides for a comprehensive approach to addressing human trafficking, although some aspects are not yet fully developed. The THB Strategy (2012-2016) was a high-level document, providing limited guidance on the external dimension of the fight against human trafficking. As of April 2017 the Commission has not published a comprehensive evaluation of the results achieved under the THB Strategy; nor has it presented a post-2016 anti-trafficking policy framework.

70

The THB Strategy is complemented by other policy documents which together address the main aspects of human trafficking. The Commission and the EEAS use a variety of tools in fighting human trafficking, either directly or indirectly: human rights dialogues are particularly useful; other tools include bilateral dialogues and support to regional fora (i.e. ASEAN and ASEM in Asia). So far no new partnerships dedicated to combat human trafficking have been created between the EU and any of the countries in South/South-East Asia (see paragraphs 22 to 43).

Recommendation 1 – Develop the human trafficking strategic framework further, by making it more relevant to South/South-East Asia

The Commission, in coordination with the EEAS and considering the implications of the mid-term review on the external financing instruments, should develop the human trafficking strategic framework further, in particular by:

• proposing to the Council an updated list of priorities, which is based on the results achieved so far, the pervasiveness of human trafficking in individual countries/regions and thematic policy priorities;
• ensuring that sufficient and comparable data on supported anti-trafficking activities is available to decision-makers and practitioners;
• developing clear objectives and targets for the fight against human trafficking, thus facilitating the design of relevant, coherent and comprehensive actions in the agreed priority countries/regions. Objectives should be translated into more detailed operational guidance which is sufficiently clear to steer activities on the ground, e.g. by using relevant country frameworks, country strategies, programming exercises and existing management reports;
• identifying and subsequently evaluating and reporting on which objectives are best pursued through projects, by using another tool (e.g. human rights dialogue, technical assistance instruments, dedicated human trafficking partnerships etc.), or by a combination of several tools.

Target date: Mid 2018

71

Despite specific weaknesses, the examined projects in South/South-East Asia produced some positive results in the fight against human trafficking. The impact of these results might, however, have been greater if a comprehensive approach had been adopted, allowing increased interaction and synergies between projects and other human trafficking-relevant tools. Around two thirds of the sample projects had weaknesses as regards the formulation of objectives and/or indicators and some design weaknesses were not addressed in good time, in particular before the grant contract was signed (see paragraphs 45 to 52).

72

The Commission monitored the projects adequately, but implementation was affected by limited national ownership and weaknesses in partners’ implementation of activities and capacity. There is an overall improvement in the fight against human trafficking in South/South-East Asia, but this is difficult to link to specific EU actions (both in terms of funding allocation and the results achieved). Although it was too early to assess the sustainability of all project results, we noted that their sustainability was not systematically ensured (14 projects out of 25 projects) (see paragraphs 54 to 67).

Recommendation 2 – Optimising the impact of projects by integrating them into a comprehensive framework

During the preparation of calls for proposals and the selection and award procedure, the Commission should aim to support projects most likely to contribute to the objectives of fighting human trafficking in the relevant priority region/country by:

• including selection criteria which support a comprehensive approach in the region/country, adequate coverage of all defined priorities and the possibility of achieving interaction and synergies between projects and other tools;
• assessing the type and size of grants which best match the strength and capacity of civil society in the country;
• ensuring that the design of selected projects includes SMART objectives and RACER indicators and that the expected results are realistic in terms of time, budget and partners’ capacity;
• placing greater emphasis on the sustainability of expected project results, from an early stage and throughout the entire project life- cycle, e.g. by including for instance, developing exit strategies which consider alternative sources of funding and encourage national ownership after project completion.

Target date: Start 2018

This Report was adopted by Chamber III, headed by Mr Karel PINXTEN, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 2 May 2017.

Acronyms and abbreviations

AOP: Action-Oriented Paper

ASEAN: Association of South-East Asian Nations

ASEM: Asia-Europe Meeting

DCI: Development Cooperation Instrument

DG DEVCO: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development

DG NEAR: Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations

EEAS: European External Action Service

EIDHR: European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights

EUROPOL: European Police Office

FRONTEX: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union

ILO: International Labour Organization

The Directive: Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p. 1)

THB Strategy: EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012

The Palermo Protocol: Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime

UNODC: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Glossary

Baseline study: A baseline study provides detailed information about a particular situation before a project starts. It is a valuable tool for comparing the situation before and after a project is implemented and for assessing other factors that may influence the changes observed during the implementation period.

External dimension: EU internal policies and actions can have significant impacts beyond the EU’s borders, just as external events can also affect the EU’s internal dynamics. The ‘external dimension of internal policies’ generally refers to situations where the external aspects of internal EU policies have a growing foreign and security policy dimension.

External aspects of justice and home affairs at global level contribute to creating an area of freedom, security and justice within the EU. For example, a weak rule of law in a third country may provide opportunities for traffickers active in Europe to launder criminal proceeds and make it more difficult to investigate their crimes. Promoting the rule of law in a third country may therefore have a positive impact all over the EU.

Logframe: A logframe (also called a logframe matrix) is a project management tool which provides a systematic and logical way of setting a project’s overall and specific objectives and defining its activities. A logframe presents the causal relationships between the different levels of objectives, provides indicators to check whether those objectives have been achieved, and identifies the assumptions made.

Mainstream: A term used to refer to the integration (or ‘mainstreaming’) of some principles/considerations into the different policies and phases of the EU programme and project cycle. In the area of human rights, it refers to a process by which human rights shape policies, programmes, projects and other interventions.

Programming: An essential decision-making process which the EEAS and the Commission use to define aid strategies, priorities and allocations.

Audit team

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and public interest.

This performance audit was produced by Chamber III – headed by ECA Member Karel Pinxten – which is responsible for the audit of the external actions’ and security and justice spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member Bettina Jakobsen. She was supported in the preparation of the report by the Head of her office, Katja Mattfolk; Beatrix Lesiewicz, Principal manager; Francisco Javier De Miguel Rodriguez, Head of task; Kim Hublé, Alina Milasiute and Alexandre Tan, Auditors, and Kim Storup, Attaché.

Contact

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

EU support to fight human trafficking in South/ South-East Asia
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

PDF	978-92-872-7462-5	1977-5679	10.2865/85826	QJAB17009ENN
HTML	978-92-872-7483-0	1977-5679	10.2865/220633	QJAB17009ENQ

© European Union, 2017

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

For any use or reproduction of Map 1, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

• one copy:
  • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:
  • from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
  • from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
  • by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or
  • calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).