Usaid Asia Counter Trafficking in Persons Program

USAID ASIA

COUNTER

TRAFFICKING

IN PERSONS

PROGRAM

ANNUAL REPORT

DECEMBER 21, 2016 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2017

SUBMISSION DATE: October 30, 2017 REVISED: January 08, 2018

COOPERATIVE3 | P a g e AGREEMENT NUMBER: AID-486-L-17-00001

USAID ASIA COUNTER TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS PROGRAM

YEAR ONE ANNUAL REPORT 2017 DECEMBER 21, 2016 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2017

DISCLAIMER This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Winrock International under cooperative agreement AID- 486-L-17-00001.

4 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations ...... ii

I. Executive Summary ...... 1

II. Highlights and Key Accomplishments ...... 2

III. Summary of Activities – Leader Award ...... 4 A. Summary of Activities ...... 4 B. Management and Administration ...... 23

IV. Summary of Activities – Associate Awards and Country Program Coodination ...... 24

V. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) ...... 25

VI. Contributions to the RDMA Development Screens ...... 25

VII. Challenges and Problems Encountered ...... 26

VIII. Future Direction and Upcoming Events ...... 27 ANNEXES ANNEX I: USAID Asia CTIP Preliminary Learning Agenda and Roadmap for Promoting Evidence Based Practices ...... 29 ANNEX II: Proposed 10 Key Outcome Indicator for Associates Awards (USAID Asia CTIP-AA Indicators) ...... 42

ANNEX III: Methodology for Measuring Impact of USAID CTIP Interventions ...... 58

ANNEX IV: Concept Note: Setting a Collaborative CTIP Learning Agenda ...... 67 ANNEX V: Briefing Paper: Civil Society Perspectives on Advocacy Around Trafficking in Persons in the ASEAN Region ...... 78

ANNEX VI: Legal Impact Hub: Law Firms & Attorney Partners ...... 89

ANNEX VII: The Mekong Club Survey Report ...... 90 ANNEX VIII: M&E Areas of Technical Assistance from USAID Asia CTIP to Associate Awards / Country Programs ...... 108 ANNEX IX: USAID Asia CTIP Key Indicators ...... 110

i | P a g e

ABBREVIATIONS

AAPTIP Australia Asia Program to Combat Trafficking in Persons AAT Alliance Anti-Trafic ACTIP ASEAN Convention against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children ACWC ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children ADHOC Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association AICHR ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights AML Anti-Money Laundering APLE Action Pour les Enfants ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations CIMB Commerce International Merchant Bankers CLA Collaborating, Learning and Adapting CSLA Civil Society Landscape Assessment CSO Civil Society Organization CSR Corporate Social Responsibility CTIP Counter-Trafficking in Persons EBP Evidence Based Practice FATF Financial Action Task Force FATF APGML Financial Action Task Force Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering FATF RTMG Financial Action Task Force Risk Threats Mitigation Group FIU Financial Intelligence Unit FM Force Multiplier FY Fiscal Year GAATW Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion HRDF Human Rights and Development Foundation HRLA Human Rights Lawyers Association ICT Information and Communication Technology IJM International Justice Mission ILO International Labour Organganization INGO International Non-Governmental Organization IOM International Organization for Migration IT Information Technology ii | P a g e

JDR John D. Rockefeller KII Key Informant Interview LA Liberty Asia LICADHO Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights LPN Labor Rights Promotion Network Foundation LSCW Legal Support for Children and Women M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MoU Memorandum of Understanding MWRN Migrant Workers Rights Network NGO Non-governmental organization NRM National Referral Mechanism PEA Political Economy Analysis PDR People’s Democratic Republic PROGRESS ASEAN-U.S. Partnership for Good Governance, Equitable and Sustainable Development PSLA Private Sector Landscape Assessment RAC Research Advisory Committee RAM Risk Assessment Matrix RDMA USAID’s Regional Development Mission for Asia SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation SOMTC ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting on Transnational Crime SSG SSG Advisors TIP Trafficking in Persons TMC The Mekong Club UN United Nations UNACT United Nations Action for Cooperation Against Trafficking in Persons U.S. United States USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar USG United States Government VCMS Victim Case Management System WG Working Group

iii | P a g e

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

USAID/RDMA awarded Cooperative Agreement AID-486-L-17-00001 to Winrock International for implementation of the USAID Asia Counter Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) program on December 21, 2016. This five-year activity focuses on transnational and regional challenges to combat trafficking in persons with activities intended to: strengthen learning around TIP; improve coordination and cooperation between source, transit and destination countries; and reduce incentives for trafficking in persons through private sector engagement. This report details project implementation, including activities, achievements and challenges, for the period from December 21, 2016-September 30, 2017.

In this the first project year, Winrock: set up operations in Bangkok; put together a strong core team; and brought on and built a consortium with SSG Advisors (SSG), NEXUS Institute, Liberty Asia (LA), the Mekong Club (TMC) and Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Woman (GAATW), a diverse group of implementing partners. We reached out and built relationships with a wide range of actors, civil society organizations, businesses, agencies and officials who are active in CTIP throughout the region and beyond. These efforts were accompanied by the launch of foundational research and analysis and a range of initiatives across all three project Force Multipliers (FMs).

Under FM 1, USAID Asia CTIP consulted stakeholders and initiated activities to understand from both those who produce and those who use or seek knowledge to combat TIP, in what areas and in what ways the project can generate, collect and disseminate knowledge and strengthen learning. These efforts included NEXUS Institute’s design and initiation of a comprehensive Research Review to determine key knowledge gaps around TIP and the most effect research methodologies focusing on Thailand, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar and Vietnam; a Mapping of Research Institutes by GAATW that identified potential local partners for ongoing TIP research; and a roadmap to promote evidence based practice and strengthen the knowledge to practice cycle, improve measurement of USAID Asia CTIP interventions and enhance the capacity of local researchers to develop and use CTIP research. With input from stakeholders at the Learning Summit scheduled for January 2018, USAID Asia CTIP will finalize a learning agenda to guide project research and activities over the coming project years.

Winrock also set up a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Working Group to discuss and seek consensus on the measurement of USAID CTIP interventions in Asia as well as for collaboration, learning and adaptive management (CLA). The Working Group is comprised of M&E specialists from USAID – Winrock bi-lateral CTIP programs in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal and led by the USAID Asia CTIP MEL (Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning) Specialist with support from a Senior Researcher from NEXUS. As part of their initial efforts to improve measurement of the USAID Asia CTIP interventions, the Working Group laid out their measurement logic for CTIP interventions, methods, and indicators.

Under FM2 the project commenced development of ‘foundation blocks’ towards the effective implementation and monitoring of regional and transnational policy instruments, particularly the ASEAN Convention against Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (ACTIP), entered into force in March of this year. These foundation blocks included analysis of civil society advocacy groups and strategy development for advocacy efforts to promote and monitor the implementation of ACTIP and towards supporting CSOs’ coordinated regional and country efforts to support TIP victims. Towards this end, USAID Asia CTIP coordinated closely with the USAID US-PROGRESS, particularly on the development of the ACWC Regional Guidelines on addressing the needs of TIP victims, especially women and children. GAATW completed scoping studies of key civil society organizations best positioned to take up TIP related policy advocacy. Liberty Asia launched its regional Legal Hub in Thailand and Cambodia and expanded and upgraded both its Freedom Collaborative online platform for dialogue, learning and cooperation and its Victim Case Management System (VCMS).

Under FM3, the project took a multi-faceted approach to encourage and support the private sector to take action to reduce TIP. This year activities focused on gaining a deeper understanding of the

1 | P a g e

business environment and companies, particularly in construction, domestic work, agriculture and seafood sectors which were identified as priority sectors for the project. SSG completed a Private Sector Landscape Analysis (PSLA) after reaching out to over 100 companies and drafted concepts for 10 potential partnerships in which companies address key TIP issues in their operations, supply chains and / or with their work force. Liberty Asia completed 3 typologies that map financial flows associated with human trafficking revealing US $346 in revenue and over 2000 victims. These typologies were shared in 17 meetings with financial organizations. TMC convened three sectoral working groups this year with 17 of its member companies to develop and refine a remediation toolkit, two risk assessment matrices and six e-learning films.

As detailed below, these Year One analyses and activities laid the ground work for USAID Asia CTIP to support, with grants and technical assistance and through strategic partnerships with the private sector, civil society and government, effective action to combat TIP in Asia in Year Two and throughout the life of the project.

II. HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Efforts to reduce TIP in Asia require an understanding of local, national, and regional dynamics, and the ability to work productively with government actors, civil society, private sector firms, and vulnerable populations, including trafficked persons. This year USAID Asia CTIP built an operational and programmatic platform to be able to mobilize, lead, and align anti-trafficking actors and networks in the region to strengthen learning around TIP, improve coordination between source and destination countries, and reduce incentives for TIP.

In January-March 2017, USAID Asia CTIP set up operations in Bangkok, put together a core team, brought on and built a consortium of 5 diverse implementing partners. We reached out and built relationships with a wide range of actors, civil society organizations, businesses, agencies and officials who are active in CTIP throughout the region and beyond. These efforts were accompanied by the launch of foundational research and analysis and a range of initiatives across all three project Force Multipliers. Highlights include:

Force Multiplier 1

• NEXUS Institute designed and initiated a Research Review to look at what is already known about human trafficking, what are key knowledge gaps, and what are the most effective and efficient methodologies for CTIP research. The Review will focus on Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states and Bangladesh and on the agriculture, construction and domestic work sectors. This year, NEXUS gathered 536 research/resources on or related to TIP in Thailand, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam. Preliminary findings were presented in September. The final Review will provide a foundation for the project’s learning agenda. • GAATW conducted a mapping of research institutions in the lower Mekong countries and Bangladesh. The mapping includes an overview of research institutions, including contact details, and a description of select institutions’ capacity to undertake research around trafficking in persons. It will support the development of a research grant program and inform criteria and selection of JDR 3rd Scholars. • Winrock laid out a roadmap to promote evidence based practices (EBPs). The roadmap, together with the Research Review and other project analyses, will provide critical input for the project’s learning agenda and prioritize methods and tools for CTIP interventions in country programs and through grants. In Year One, Winrock focused on identifying and developing the necessary EBP building blocks to advance the use of evidence based TIP interventions to strengthen both learning and interventions around TIP.

2 | P a g e

• Winrock set up the project’s M&E systems and developed standards, methods, and processes for the monitoring and assessment of the project. • A regional M&E knowledge community, referred to as the M&E Working Group, was formed with USAID CTIP country program M&E staff to discuss and seek consensus on the measurement of CTIP interventions in Asia as well as for collaborating, learning and adapting (CLA) management. • Measurement logic for CTIP interventions, methods, and indicators were developed in consultation with the M&E Working Group as part of their initial efforts to improve measurement of USAID Asia TIP interventions. • Methodology and a model/prototype for measuring the reduction in TIP using existing datasets were developed for testing in two USAID CTIP bilateral projects in Year Two.

Force Multiplier 2

• GAATW conducted the first phase of its Civil Society Landscape Assessment (CSLA) which included scoping studies in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia and Thailand. A summary of the initial findings were detailed in a Briefing Paper. The final report, to be completed with further analysis early next year, will inform a strategy for civil society advocacy and methods to support the implementation of ACTIP. • Liberty Asia launched its Legal Impact Hub in Thailand and Cambodia with roundtable sessions in both countries for law firms and civil society and other interested stakeholders. Members now include 10 law firms and 20 civil society organizations. • Through the Legal Impact Hub, Liberty Asia completed a review of the governance structures and mechanisms of the palm oil industry in Malaysia, a key destination country in the region. Palm oil in Malaysia was prioritized based on multiple reports of abuse (as indicated by VCMS cases and other sources) and the existing momentum to address the problem with relevant businesses and an industry association. • Freedom Collaborative added 151 new members, including 85 in Asia and Middle-East, during the reporting period, bringing total network membership to 539 organizations. • Freedom Collaborative also organized seven webinars on TIP related topics including transnational referral mechanisms, trafficking issues in the fishing industry, and child protection in the context of TIP. • Liberty Asia incorporated 1847 new cases into its Victim Case Management System. Thirteen civil society organizations (CSOs) joined the platform bringing the total to 139. This year Liberty Asia also completed translations of Khmer and Thai platforms.

Force Multiplier 3

• SSG completed a Private Sector Landscape Assessment (PSLA), holding in-depth key informant interviews (KIIs) with 75 global, regional, and national stakeholders representing companies, industry groups, NGOs and government. The PSLA report included an overview of how companies understand the risk of TIP to their business and industry and key challenges they see in addressing the risk. In addition, SSG developed concepts for 10 partnerships to support company efforts to reduce TIP in their operations and supply chains or reduce worker vulnerability. • The findings of the PSLA were complemented by the Mekong Club’s Annual Private Sector Survey of 32 of its member companies, detailing the types of they have taken or are interested in taking against TIP. • TMC convened three sectoral working groups this year with 17 member companies. Discussions focused on the development and revision of tools designed by TMC and the companies. The tools include a remediation toolkit, two risk assessment matrices and six e- learning films.

3 | P a g e

• Liberty Asia completed 3 typologies, two on the Thai fishing industry and one on textiles in Bangladesh. These typologies provide detailed information that connects TIP to money laundering so that regulators, banks and risk adverse companies would utilize as part of their due diligence. The typologies were presented to 17 financial institutions and identified US $346 million in revenues from slavery and over 2,000 victims. Liberty Asia also engaged anti- money laundering (AML) regulators on 7 occasions presenting typologies and explaining the connection between AML and TIP.

III. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES – LEADER AWARD

A. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

FORCE MULTIPLIER 1: STRENGTHEN LEARNING OF TIP INTERVENTIONS

Task 1.1: Establishing the Asia CTIP evidence base and learning agenda

USAID Asia CTIP launched efforts to establish an evidence base and learning agenda to guide project activities and to engage with the broader CTIP community. This to-date is comprised of two primary activities: developing a roadmap to identify, test and apply evidence based practices and conducting a Research Review of current TIP knowledge and knowledge gaps.

Roadmap to Promote Evidence Based Practices: A Conceptual Framework and a Strategy for Application: USAID Asia CTIP defines evidence based practice (EBP) as a component or activity informed by or built on the best available research that is combined with experiential and contextual evidence. Evidence1 of the results of counter-trafficking interventions includes ‘promising’ practices, lessons learned, formal research, observations, and anecdotal information. In addition, other sectors or disciplines (for example, criminal justice, public health, and social protection) have accumulated a rich body of knowledge relevant to the counter trafficking sector. Evidence based decision making occurs when the best available research evidence is combined with experiential and contextual evidence as illustrated in Figure I. Figure 1: A Framework for Thinking about Evidence To promote the use of such an evidence base for USAID TIP interventions USAID Asia CTIP will 1) develop new evidence, 2) distribute and promote

1Puddy, R. W. & Wilkins, N. (2011). Understanding Evidence Part 1: Best Available Research Evidence. A Guide to the Continuum of Evidence and Effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Online at https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/understanding_evidence-a.pdf (Retrieved: October 2, 2017)

4 | P a g e

both existing and new evidence, and 3) support the application of evidence on CTIP. In Year 1, the project focused on identifying and developing the necessary EBP building blocks to promote the “increased use of evidence base for USAID TIP interventions” to strengthen learning and interventions around TIP. This has entailed working closely with USAID CTIP country programs to review their program data and data collection methodologies, consulting with CTIP stakeholders, reviewing literature and open source data and incorporating preliminary findings from the Research Review.

This laid the groundwork for a series of activities in Year Two starting with the setting up an EBP Committee comprised of experts in TIP with experience and understanding of an EBP framework to drive and monitor the process of identifying EBPs, prioritizing EBPs for action, and setting a long and short-term learning agenda for research and research testing and adaptation of models. A more detailed description of the Roadmap can be found in Annex I: USAID Asia CTIP Preliminary Learning Agenda and Roadmap for Promoting Evidence Based Practices.

Research Review: NEXUS Institute designed and initiated a Research Review which will serve as the foundation for the project’s learning agenda. The Review was designed to look at what is already known about human trafficking, what are the key knowledge gaps, and what are the most effective and efficient methodologies for CTIP research with a focus on the agriculture, construction and domestic work sectors in ASEAN member states and Bangladesh.

As indicated in the fiscal year (FY) 17 workplan, NEXUS had intended to focus the first phase of its review on Thailand, Lao PDR and Myanmar only to feed into the Learning Agenda Summit and work planning. However, the Learning Summit was moved from November to January, so in an effort to accelerate the process, NEXUS expanded the scope of the research to also cover Cambodia and Viet Nam with data analysis to be conducted in October. Preliminary findings for the five countries would then be developed and shared at the January Learning Summit. Based on preliminary analysis of the research database, NEXUS provided initial broad findings to the Winrock team in September. It should be noted that findings at the time of reporting are based on only a first round of analysis; higher order questions – of how existing research can be used to inform future research and programming and how to fill current knowledge gaps – will be completed upon further analysis.

In total, NEXUS gathered 536 research/resources on or related to TIP in the 5 focus countries. In the interests of gathering as much relevant and applicable research as possible which can shed light on the selected labor sectors or anti-trafficking responses, NEXUS has taken a broad, flexible approach to resources included in the review, including more materials than can strictly fit within a definition of TIP research. Reports on overlapping topics (e.g., human rights, forced or child labor or migration, work conditions of migrant workers, studies on experiences of migrants in different labor sectors) sometimes provide information relevant to TIP issues but may (or may not) use the terminology of “trafficking in persons” or “human trafficking”. Given the wide lens applied, it is noteworthy that there are so few studies (68) specific to the three priority economic sectors – construction (5), agriculture (38) and domestic work (25).

Other preliminary findings include:

• There are some countries for which more information is available. For example, more research has been conducted on Thailand than the four other countries. This is likely a function of Thailand being both and origin and destination country but it may also have other explanations. Other country-specific patterns may emerge with more review and analysis. • More research/resources about other forms of TIP/exploitation has been conducted than in the three project priority sectors. This is particularly the case for some forms of trafficking like sexual exploitation and, in the case of Thailand, trafficking in the fishing industry. • Existing TIP and related research on the three sectors tends to focus on specific trends, patterns and destinations. For example, in the agricultural sector there are a number of studies of Thai nationals exploited in Sweden and to a lesser extent Finland. However, this cannot be

5 | P a g e

taken to mean that this is the dominant trend of trafficking in the sector. Moreover, some trends, patterns and destinations are entirely missing from the body of research/evidence. Triangulating the research with media accounts suggests that there is evidence of TIP in those sectors but research has not yet taken place, highlighting the need to decipher when lack of research means that there is no trafficking taking place or is instead a function of no research having been conducted (or no research being possible or permitted). • Some knowledge gaps are about access to research rather than lack of research itself. This might relate to access to resources for fee-based journals, books and other information sources; organizations and institutions not making studies and findings available; organizations may not have time to search for research when staff have other ‘frontline’ work; and much published research is available only in English while much national research is not translated into English for wider distribution. • Most TIP and related research/resources are not based on primary data collection. Rather much research is desk-based and draws on other research and resources. While there is much to be gained from data collection with anti-trafficking stakeholders, it is also important to give voice to those for whom this is their lived experience so that we can learn from their advice and experience. At the same time, this should not be taken to mean that there needs to necessarily be an increase in studies based on primary data as there are also substantial concerns to be borne in mind in how primary data collection with trafficking victims and migrant workers must adhere to the highest ethical standards, recognizing their position as vulnerable persons. • There is a lack of gender disaggregation in TIP and related research. This lack of clarity around the gender of trafficking victims (or migrant workers) makes it very difficult to have a clear picture of who (i.e., man, woman, boy, girl) is working or exploited in a particular labor sector. It also impacts awareness of the issue amongst anti-trafficking professionals, with the overarching and too common assumption that trafficking victims are only or even most commonly women and girls. • There is limited primary data collection about children for different forms of trafficking. Research on trafficked children is most commonly conducted amongst girls who are sexually exploited. Very few studies include sexually exploited boys in spite of studies that signal the prevalence of this form of exploitation among boys. • There are stages of the trafficking trajectory about which there is very little research, specifically life before trafficking and stages after trafficking. By contrast, the topics about which there was the most information were about life while trafficked and the legal process. • In spite of numerous materials on the laws and regulations, there is very little information on how the criminal justice system functions in practice, that is, how it is experienced by victims and witnesses. • There is an overall dearth of information about traffickers and perpetrators. • There is a general lack of information about the ‘normal’ operation of labor sectors, including but not limited to, the project’s three priority sectors. More research on the economic sector as a whole would be useful in terms of situating when incidents or practices constitute labor abuse, exploitation, and/or rise to the level of TIP. • Appropriate methodologies are informed by each specific research project. What constitutes the most “effective” and “efficient” methodology needs to be assessed relative to the research question itself, ethical considerations, as well as practical concerns such as the availability of time and resources, technical capacity, etc. • Research alone will not fill the knowledge gaps on TIP in Asia. Based on the initial review of research, there is a need to consider and access other forms of knowledge which might include, but not be limited to, news and media accounts; analyzing case management data from CTIP country programs and partners; assessing M&E data from country programs; administrative data from government partners (if available and legally accessible); re-analysis of existing data sets and so-on.

6 | P a g e

As noted above, these findings, once NEXUS conducts more comprehensive and in-depth analysis, could shift significantly. They are at this point preliminary and were drawn to help steer and inform FY18 project planning and the Learning Summit agenda.

(Contributes to: Sub FM1.1Increased use of evidence base for USAID TIP interventions; Indicator 1.1.1: Number of actions taken by USAID Asia CTIP stakeholders to support USAID Asia CTIP learning agenda to promote evidence-based CTIP)

Task 1.2: Action Briefs (and “Learning Briefs”)

Action / Learning Briefs to disseminate findings on key project learnings including from the Research Review and the Summit were planned for development this year. Given the delay in the Summit and status of the Research Review analysis until January, these Briefs are now planned for completion in early 2018 for presentation at the Learning Summit. They will also then be distributed through multiple on-line communication channels such as the USAID Learning Lab working group, Freedom Collaborative, GAATW Newsletter, and partners’ platforms and directly to government institutions working on TIP, migration and other relevant issues.

(Contributes to: Sub FM1.1 Increased use of evidence base for USAID TIP interventions; Indicator 1.1.2: Number of stakeholders/implementers who adopt evidence-based practices identified by USAID Asia CTIP [includes mainstreaming CTIP in non-TIP interventions, policy changes, improvement/revision of TIP program planning, implementation, procedures, M&E, and partnerships])

Task 1.3: Development of standards, methods, and processes for consistent monitoring and assessment of USAID CTIP interventions

During Year One, USAID Asia CTIP addressed the need for consistent monitoring and evaluation of USAID CTIP interventions in Asia through standardization of CTIP M&E indicators and processes and developing a comprehensive shared approach (i.e., community of practice around CTIP interventions) to nurture a culture of collaboration, learning and adapting interventions. To promote learning through iterative discussion, debate, and collaboration, USAID Asia CTIP created an M&E resource/repository and mobilized the M&E Working Group to enhance CLA in USAID CTIP interventions in Asia.

Repository of accumulated knowledge in measurement of CTIP interventions: The aim of this is to create an on-line archive that contains the work and/or data associated with measurement of CTIP interventions. This repository is intended to better capture, taxonomize, analyze and share knowledge from previous CTIP interventions. To-date, USAID Asia CTIP:

• Developed of a typology of disaggregated assumptions and theories of change2 underlining USAID CTIP interventions in Asia (Cambodia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Thailand, and Laos) based on intervention type and change area and their evolution. In the form of compilation of results frameworks and clustered key propositions, this data will serve as a point of departure for the learning journey and accumulating knowledge in CTIP interventions. By making the theory of change explicit, we will be able to use the M&E data (and other data) to test it and accumulate and document findings/learnings. • Compiled accumulated, not-yet-validated, knowledge by intervention type and change area (promising practices from Cambodia, Bangladesh, and from literature) and conducted validation from literature on the substance and classification of accumulated knowledge;

2 “Just because it worked in Cambodia doesn’t mean it will work in Laos” That is true. According to Stanford Social Innovation Review, Mary Ann Bates and Rachel Glennerster from J-PAL, the first step of a strategy to help policy makers through that process of appropriate adaption of results from one context to another is defining the disaggregated theory behind the program. See David Evans’ article on a framework for taking one evidence from one location to another at http://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/framework-taking-evidence-one-location- another?cid=EXT_WBBlogSocialShare_D_EXT

7 | P a g e

• Drafted ten indicators (with reference sheets) to monitor intermediate results and context of USAID CTIP interventions in Asia (see Annex II). Each indicator was debated and carefully crafted to portray the desired change.

Promoting the use of M&E data to enhance CLA in USAID CTIP interventions in Asia: To promote the use of M&E data to enhance CLA culture in USAID CTIP programs, USAID Asia CTIP established an M&E knowledge community, referred to as the USAID Asia CTIP M&E Working Group (WG). The Working Group serves as a forum for USAID CTIP initiatives throughout the region to discuss and seek consensus on the definition of key indicators, methodology and mechanisms for data collection, as well for collaboration, learning and adaptive management.

The M&E WG regularly convenes through virtual/skype meetings. An inaugural in-person meeting was held in Bangkok on September 6-7. In the meeting, attended by M&E Specialists from Winrock-USAID CTIP projects in Cambodia, Bangladesh, and Nepal and NEXUS Senior Researcher, the group:

1. Set up the M&E WG basic governance (membership, activities and meetings, roles and responsibilities); 2. Reviewed a draft concept note on USAID Asia regional CTIP indicators and methodology as the basis of an Asia regional M&E toolkit; and 3. Developed a workplan including a plan for the USAID Asia CTIP first Learning Summit.

Participants agreed that the M&E Working Group will begin with a technical core group to develop M&E methodologies for tracking and evaluating the implementation, successes, failures, and long-term impacts of USAID CTIP programs in Asia. This technical group will be composed of M&E experts from implementing organizations, research organizations and USAID staff who have worked on M&E for CTIP. In addition, the group will include an external CTIP M&E expert and an M&E expert from another sector such as epidemiology or economics. This core group will be expected to consult with other stakeholders in the process of methodology development and dissemination of developed tools.

(Contributes to: FM1.2: Improved measurement of USAID TIP interventions; Indicator 1.2.1: Number of USAID Missions/USG CTIP initiatives in Asia regularly using agreed methods and indicators)

Task 1.4: Measuring reductions in TIP and improved rights of trafficked persons in Asia: Finding an Innovative big data solution to CTIP

Methodology for Measurement of Impact of TIP Interventions: One of the methodological challenges in measurement of the effectiveness/impact of CTIP interventions is a belief that the ultimate desired change of CTIP interventions is reduction of incidence or prevalence of trafficking in persons (TIP). Driven by this belief—that impact measurement is about reduction of TIP prevalence—years and millions of dollars have been spent to generate various estimation techniques. Most national, regional, and global TIP estimates are based on prevalence studies, which are costly, difficult to conduct regularly, and often do not provide enough detail to develop targeted sectoral interventions or track progress over time. A large body of research and data available on issues closely related to TIP have not been properly incorporated into the evidence base.

In response and with support from the M&E Working Group, in Year One USAID Asia CTIP proposed a methodology (see Annex III) to measure the impact of USAID CTIP interventions through “mining” data from existing datasets and new sources (World Bank Open Data, customs and excise records, migration rates, employment rate, labor price indices, media monitoring, case management data, internet search terms, data sets from implementing partners, etc.) to predict where TIP risks are most likely to arise.

The anti-human trafficking community has learned that documenting TIP incidence and measuring the trafficked population is difficult and problematic. However, we believe this can be predicted by

8 | P a g e

"proximate determinants" that directly influence the likelihood that TIP risk factors materialize. The basic premise of the methodology is based on proven practice in measurement disciplines in other fields (anti-corruption and disaster risk reduction interventions for example) where it is possible to predict the impact of interventions before the incidences of corruption or a disaster occurs. Focusing measurement on the evidence around TIP determinants reflects a shift in thinking about what success looks like in CTIP interventions, from reduced TIP prevalence to reduced risk factors for TIP.

This shifting of measurement focus shall provide a cost-effective, contextual but consistent measurement of the state of TIP’s key determinant factors that later will allow for CTIP interventions to focus on the targeted populations, geographical areas and time periods in which TIP’s risk factors are most likely to be highest. The idea is radical in its simplicity because the focus of the measurement is on the proximate determinants or risks of TIP, instead of TIP incidence.

(Contributes to: FM1.2: Improved measurement of USAID TIP interventions; Indicator 1.2.1: Number of USAID Missions/USG CTIP initiatives in Asia regularly using agreed methods and indicators)

Task 1.5: Conduct mapping of academic and research institutions in the region and establish and lead a steering committee of research experts

GAATW conducted a Mapping of Research Institutions in the Lower Mekong Region (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam,), and Bangladesh to identify potential research partners for USAID Asia CTIP and gauge their capacity to carry out TIP research. The mapping provided an overview of research institutions in each country including contact information and details on TIP related research conducted over the last ten years by six select organizations as well overall challenges faced by research institutions on the ground. The methodology included desk research and in-person interviews. Key findings include:

1. There has been only limited research conducted on TIP by research institutes in all of the target countries, with the exception of Thailand. 2. TIP research is not a priority for the few existing research institutes in this region. 3. United Nations, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and donor agencies tend to work with individual researchers, mostly from outside of the region to conduct TIP research. 4. Research is linked to resourcing or funding availability that is, it is driven by donor demand.

GAATW will establish a Research Advisory Committee (RAC) comprised of academics, policymakers and non-governmental organization (NGO) implementers to lead the solicitation and selection of 2-3 independent research grants for action research (launched following the Learning Summit) supported through USAID Asia CTIP’s research grants fund. The RAC will manage the research grants and provide technical support to the research team. In addition, a sub-committee under RAC will be created to manage the JDR 3rd Scholars, a parallel research grants program multi-disciplinary policy research teams to be launched simultaneously.

(Contributes to: FM1.3: Increased local capacity to conduct TIP M&E and research; Indicator 1.3.1.: Number of local researchers/research institutions producing peer-reviewed TIP-related research/evaluation reports)

Task 1.6: Learning Agenda Summit Planning

Over the course of the year, Winrock worked closely with partners and stakeholders from across the region and across sectors on the planning of the first in a series of annual Learning Summits. These Summits are meant to provide a venue and catalyst for learning, testing and applying ideas, models and innovation to reduce TIP in Asia. The first Summit was originally planned for November 2017. However, in the same month ChabDai (a Cambodia-based CTIP civil society network) planned a global CTIP conference and Issara is holding a Global Forum on Business and Human Rights; both will be

9 | P a g e

held in Bangkok. After consultation with partners and RDMA, it was decided that holding three large events on issues relating to TIP in Bangkok during the same month would only serve to dilute the impact of all events and would go against one of the core principles of USAID Asia CTIP – coordination and collaboration. The Summit was re-scheduled for late January 2018.3

In planning for the Summit, Winrock laid out a 5-year process which would be launched at the Summit. The process as detailed in Annex IV is intended to follow a trajectory from identifying priorities for learning to collaborating for action against TIP to learning from those applications and finally, to sustaining success.

The Summit design was informed by project assessments including the NEXUS Research Review, SSG’s PSLA and GAATW’s research institute and civil society mapping. It will also provide a forum to present and test the findings of these assessments. Plans are underway to commission, in collaboration with IOMX, an opening video that will bring the voices of workers (including migrant workers) in priority sectors to the Summit. Approximately 150 representatives from civil society and the public and private sectors in Asia are expected to attend.

(Contributes to: Sub FM1.1: Increased use of evidence base for USAID TIP interventions; Indicator 1.1.1: Number of actions taken by USAID Asia CTIP stakeholders to support USAID Asia CTIP learning agenda to promote evidence-based CTIP)

FORCE MULTIPLIER 2: IMPROVED COORDINATION BETWEEN SOURCE, TRANSIT AND DESTINATION COUNTRIES

FM 2 2.1 Practical implementation of regional and bilateral frameworks

After consultations throughout Year One with key stakeholders, including key ASEAN representatives from the Senior Officials Meeting on Transnational Crime (SOMTC), the Commission on The Promotion and Protection of The Rights of Women and Children (ACWC) and the Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), ASEAN U.S. PROGRESS, UN-ACT, implementing partners, USAID Cambodia CTIP, and CSOs, as well as an analysis of literature on TIP and CSO advocacy work in the region, USAID Asia CTIP detailed its approach which aims at enhancing implementation of regional and bilateral frameworks addressing TIP. The approach focuses on supporting ASEAN efforts to promote and monitor the implementation of the ASEAN Convention against Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (ACTIP) and towards supporting CSOs’ advocacy efforts towards the effective implementation of ACTIP and bilateral agreements to coordinate countries’ efforts to protect and support TIP victims. Such strategies rely on robust “foundation blocks” which include:

• A civil society landscape assessment (CSLA) to identify the best-placed CSOs to conduct policy advocacy work on TIP. • A process to understand the political economy landscape of ASEAN in relation to CTIP (power dynamics, incentives, interests among bodies and representatives) and identify key entry points and potential allies and champions. • Coordination with PROGRESS on their support to ASEAN in combating TIP, particularly with the development of the ACWC Regional Guidelines on addressing the needs of TIP victims, especially women and children, which set up regional standards in relation to identification and referral procedures at national and transnational levels.

3 Soon after the end of this reporting period, Winrock was informed by RDMA that our next obligation would be reduced. The delay required that Winrock postpone the Summit until after the funding obligation is restored.

10 | P a g e

• Support for the implementation of transnational referral mechanisms, including bilateral frameworks to address TIP through enhancing national referral mechanisms promising practices in source and destination countries (e.g. Thailand and Myanmar national referral mechanisms)

During Year One, USAID Asia CTIP completed the initial phase of the CSLA, initiated a process to understand the political economy landscape of ASEAN in relation to CTIP, and worked with PROGRESS to ensure a smooth transition of PROGRESS’ CTIP activities to USAID Asia CTIP after September 2018, when PROGRESS will end. Discussions were also initiated with other stakeholders such as UN-ACT, APTIP and key CSOs on strategies to support the implementation of bilateral frameworks addressing TIP, including MoUs on cooperation between governments for supporting and assisting TIP victims.

Task 2.1. Conduct Public Sector and Civil Society assessments to analyze and document actors’ influence and interest in change or reform efforts related to TIP

In March 2017, the ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (ACTIP), a legally binding instrument, entered into force, requiring state parties to strengthen their individual and collective responses to trafficking in persons. Achieving compliance with ACTIP will require reforms in member states that will likely need advice, support and sometimes pressure from various stakeholders, including CSOs. CSOs are uniquely placed to support ACTIP implementation because they have regular contact with trafficked persons and other vulnerable groups and have an understanding of the cultural, political and social frameworks in which they operate. However, the space for CSO advocacy differs between the various ASEAN countries, as does the interest, capacity and experience of CSOs to undertake policy advocacy especially at regional or bilateral levels.

One of the “foundation blocks” necessary for the development of strategies for the implementation of regional and bilateral frameworks is a civil society landscape assessment (CSLA) conducted by GAATW and designed to identify CSOs best positioned to lead CTIP advocacy in Asia, including current coalitions and networks that are most relevant and carry the most influence.

During Year One, GAATW completed the first phase of the landscape assessment using a qualitative descriptive research design to understand the perceptions and experiences of CSOs working on TIP in: Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand. This initial phase of the CSLA was conducted with a view to strengthen CSO engagement on TIP policies at the national and especially regional levels, by understanding the political context for policy advocacy from the perspective of CSOs and engaging them in a process of self-assessment of their capacity to carry out policy advocacy at national and regional levels. These scoping studies will be complemented with further information and analysis on the advocacy landscape in each of the five targeted countries, as well as CSO policy influencing approaches and activities related to TIP.

Phase II of the assessment will be conducted once findings are shared at the Learning Summit in January. Input will feed into further in-depth research conducted in select countries. The regional civil society consultation workshop included in the original design and project Year One work plan will instead be held following this Phase II research and form the basis for the development of a CSO regional advocacy strategy.

GAATW’s initial report indicates that several CSOs interviewed consider that they have contributed to policy change in their respective countries, including the development and adoption of new laws and regulations addressing TIP. USAID Asia CTIP is undertaking additional consultations in target countries to answer further key questions such as: What influencing strategies were developed? What evidence was used as a basis for influencing? What challenges were faced and how did CSOs overcome the difficulties? Was the development and implementation of strategy and activities supported by other key stakeholders? In what way? Do CSOs know of other advocacy initiatives pursuing the same objectives?

11 | P a g e

(collaboration? opposition? potential duplication of efforts?), How was success attributed to CSOs? What are the lessons learned? Additional analysis will also review civil society operating space in each targeted country. Annex V provides a briefing paper that summarizes Phase I findings to-date.

The final CSLA report, which will include the additional analysis described above is scheduled to be completed in project Year Two and will be critical for the development of a strategy to engage civil society of ASEAN member states in advocacy and implementation around ACTIP and transnational issues.

(Contributes to: FM2.1 Practical implementation of regional and bilateral frameworks; Indicator 2.1.1: Number of policies, procedures, protocols, agreement or commitment adopted or implementation strengthened by ASEAN/SAARC countries for improving CTIP planning, implementation and monitoring [includes referral system, regional TIP identification guidelines, communication protocol, national plans of action on business and human rights adoption by Asian countries/ASEAN/SAARC, etc.])

Task 2.2: Political Economy Analysis (PEA)

The Political Economy Analysis (PEA) is another “foundation block” of the project’s engagement towards improved implementation of regional and bilateral frameworks addressing TIP in Asia. PEA aims to uncover the complexities of the ACTIP implementation process and the wide range of interacting actors involved who may have diverging perceptions of TIP, competing interests as well as unbalanced power relationships. The key identified challenges for implementation and monitoring of ACTIP include the minimal or shrinking space for policy advocacy in most ASEAN member states, lack of engagement of key ASEAN bodies with civil society as well as reluctance from ASEAN Representatives to consider a monitoring mechanism for ACTIP to increase accountability.

In Year One, USAID Asia CTIP developed a PEA framework and collected PEA related knowledge among USAID CTIP staff, partners, and other key stakeholders, including PROGRESS. The framework was further developed at a PEA training workshop organized by RDMA in September 2017.

Discussions with PROGRESS throughout Year One have provided USAID Asia CTIP with information about ASEAN and member state dynamics around TIP based on PROGRESS’s experience supporting ASEAN initiatives to combat TIP, particularly in partnership with ACWC and AICHR. Although PROGRESS’s experience and insights are invaluable to understanding the dynamics around TIP in ASEAN, they provide only a partial and distinct perspective for USAID Asia CTIP. PROGRESS’s focus on strengthening institutions to advance ASEAN’s vision for political-security and social-cultural integration rather than USAID’s Asia CTIP’s focus on engaging with ASEAN bodies as a strategy to reduce TIP in Asia might lead to differing priorities and ways of engaging with ASEAN, particularly with SOMTC, which is ASEAN’s sectoral-body in charge of promoting and monitoring the implementation of ACTIP. Further PEA analysis will help to fill in those gaps as well as help the project determine the value of engaging ASEAN directly as opposed to through other regional and bilateral mechanisms, to push for the practical implementation and effective monitoring of ACTIP by ASEAN member states.

Given the complex and rapidly changing nature of the political economy landscape of TIP in Asia, a USAID Asia CTIP PEA process is seen as a starting point for an iterative process (across FMs) to enable the project to develop adaptive responses to evolving TIP landscape dynamics. In other words, this process aims at ensuring that at USAID Asia CTIP project programming is “politically informed” throughout the duration of the project.

This objective requires embedding and mainstreaming a “thinking and working politically” approach among the USAID CTIP team and partners as well as the development and implementation of a review mechanism of PEA findings and recommendations on a regular basis, in consultation with key stakeholders (e.g. academia, CSOs, PROGRESS).

12 | P a g e

Task 2.3: Coordinate with PROGRESS and support civil society to advocate for improving the ability of ASEAN members to comply with ACTIP

In September 2018, USAID’s ASEAN-US PROGRESS project (PROGRESS) will wind down. At that time, PROGRESS’ activities aimed at supporting ASEAN in combating TIP will be transitioned to USAID Asia CTIP. To ensure a smooth transition between the two projects, USAID Asia CTIP is working with PROGRESS to introduce key ASEAN stakeholders and USAID Asia CTIP and to identify concrete areas of collaboration until the end of September. Coordination this year has included: • USAID Asia CTIP’s participation in events organized by PROGRESS and ACWC on the development of Regional Guidelines to address the needs of TIP victims, especially Women and Children and participation in the Thailand national consultation on the Regional Guidelines co-organized by ACWC and PROGRESS. • USAID Asia CTIP’s participation in national-level discussions in ASEAN Member States on the implementation of the ACTIP, co-organized by PROGRESS and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The aim of the national-level discussions was to gather relevant government officials, including law enforcement, and civil society actors, to identify the challenges and opportunities of implementing ACTIP. In Year Two USAID Asia CTIP will use the networks of key stakeholders developed through these national-level discussions to reach out to SOMTC representatives in different ASEAN member states and start a dialogue on the monitoring process of ACTIP and its Plan of Action. • USAID Asia CTIP’s participation in Cross-sectoral consultation on the Human Rights Based Instruments related to the implementation of ACTIP, organized by AICHR in August 2017 in Indonesia. During this event, USAID Asia CTIP met key ASEAN representatives, including the SOMTC representative from the Philippines, who is ASEAN’s lead shepherd on TIP.

PROGRESS, ACWC and Winrock agreed that USAID Asia CTIP would support the organization of national consultations in four ASEAN countries to collect additional feedback on the draft Regional Guidelines on addressing the needs of TIP victims during the 1st Quarter of Year 2, which are expected to be endorsed in May 2018. The endorsement of these guidelines would be a key achievement for PROGRESS and an important point of departure for USAID Asia CTIP once PROGRESS hands over their CTIP portfolio. USAID Asia CTIP plans to work closely with ACWC to support the roll out and translation of these guidelines into national standards. USAID Asia CTIP will work closely with Thailand and Laos Associate Awards as well as Cambodia CTIP on developing strategies to support the operationalization of the Regional Guidelines at national level.

Task 2.4: Support strengthened transnational referral mechanisms and develop regional guidelines among countries in Asia and the Middle East

ASEAN member states have signed multiple Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) on Bilateral Cooperation for Eliminating Trafficking in Persons and Protecting Victims of Trafficking. These MoUs aim at ensuring that TIP victims are properly identified, repatriated and assisted. They are the legal basis for transnational referral mechanisms, which are operationalized through standard operating

13 | P a g e

procedures and monitoring plans. However, the implementation of MoUs is poor due to lack of robust national referral systems in many ASEAN countries, with the exception of countries like Thailand and Myanmar. The identification of TIP victims lacks consistency and their referral to support services is not effective due to lack of resources for assistance.

According to consultations with stakeholders as well as a review of relevant literature in Year One, initial interventions towards the development of effective transnational referral mechanisms would need to start at the national level, with a mapping of existing national referral mechanisms (NRM) and the identification of what is required to ensure that such NRMs could reach the standards set forth in the Regional Guidelines on addressing the needs of TIP victims, especially Women and Children, currently being developed by ACWC. USAID Asia CTIP expects that this mapping could be conducted in Year Two through its Windows of Opportunity grants. The mapping would lead to the identification of promising NRM practices which could then be supported by USAID Asia CTIP (one in a sending country and one in a receiving country) as part of EBPs (described above in Section III) A that could be shared and scaled up in other ASEAN countries and be used as a basis for the development of effective transnational referral systems.

Through its support to Liberty Asia’s Victim Case Management System (VCMS), a secure online platform which allows CSOs to capture, store and confidentially conduct case sharing and referrals, USAID Asia CTIP has contributed to the development of good practices, especially in the area of TIP victim case management through confidential and secure use and sharing of TIP victims case data with other organizations at the national level and across borders, which are fundamental to the development of national and transnational referral mechanisms. In addition, the VCMS database contains information such as places of origin of TIP victims, trafficking routes, types of abuses and exploitation and access to support services, that supports Liberty Asia’s typology research as well as informs direction and priorities for the Legal Impact Hub, both described below.

In Year One, Liberty Asia incorporated 1,847 new cases of TIP victims into the system and 3 CSOs joined the platform bringing the total to 139. This growth was accomplished with 81 training sessions to NGOs, including on-boarding for new members and maintenance training for existing partners. The system was also upgraded this year with the translation of the platform into Khmer and Thai and the successful testing of referral settings with Thai NGOs.

Combined with findings and recommendations from the other “foundation blocks” (CSLA, PEA) for engagement towards the practical implementation of regional and bilateral frameworks addressing TIP, suggestions and recommendations from consultations and experience on transnational and national referral mechanisms will help the project identify concrete and strategic interventions (e.g. advocacy, capacity building and technical support), towards a more effective transnational response to addressing the needs of victims of TIP in an appropriate and comprehensive manner.

Task 2.5: Legal Impact Hub

Liberty Asia’s Legal Impact Hub is a coordinated virtual community of relevant stakeholders to provide jurisdictional development and analysis, legal practice support, training for NGOs and corporates and support and strategy for banking and investment due diligence. It allows for a creative use of the law and maximizes opportunities to challenge implementation gaps. The ultimate aim is to bring together those engaging with or through legal mechanisms with varying agendas/mandates, to promote sharing of knowledge and actionable information and research in order to promote more informed action and

14 | P a g e

strengthen access to justice for victims. This is a safe space for stakeholders to learn from each other and take action with an array of resources and networks provided for and within the Hub.

The Legal Impact Hub is focused both on the private sector and on victims. These two areas are linked in a multitude of ways: the most obvious being the exploitation of victims in the private sector and the use of the private sector by traffickers to accumulate and legitimize their illicit gains.

Liberty Asia started its development of the Legal Impact Hub 2 years prior to joining USAID Asia CTIP. This involved building an informal network and relationships among stakeholders working in the field of access to justice and corporate accountability, including: specialist independent human trafficking attorneys; global legal service providers; NGOs working on access to justice for victims; corporate accountability organizations; investment due diligence providers; and banking groups.

LA also created a range of foundation documents: country legal gap analyses; industry governance focused documents; and banking law and anti-trafficking legal analyses. In FY17, with support from USAID Asia CTIP and in conjunction with its VCMS expansion efforts aimed at establishing a strong base of documented trafficking cases in Malaysia, one of the key destination countries in the region. Liberty Asia completed a review of the governance structures and mechanisms of the palm oil industry in the country, which was prioritized based on multiple reports of abuse and the existing momentum to address the problem with relevant businesses and an industry association. The report identifies the extent of accountability and how authority and power is distributed, therefore, helping the Hub and its members to better understand how they can use legal mechanisms to encourage change and apply pressure to enforce current and potentially future responsibilities to the management of business, especially as it relates to recruitment and treatment of workers.

Other foundational work under development with support from USAID Asia CTIP, is a registry of prosecutions and disputes in Asian jurisdictions to support CSOs in the area of strategic litigation. The registry, which now contains 650 cases, provides data as to the nature of cases, their geography, duration and other information which will allow Hub members to better understand what has worked from a litigation perspective, what causes of action have been pursued, and where convictions have been successful. It will be available upon further review in FY 18.

Although still an informal network, the Hub started to represent victims, work on developing different causes of actions, assist and pursue corporate accountability strategies, and develop training and analysis materials. The structured development of the Hub since its inception and continued under USAID Asia CTIP, is designed to build a trained and active legal community across Asia.

The Hub also engages with NGOs supporting access to justice and providing services for victims of human trafficking. In project Year One, Liberty Asia was able to build the Hub to a position where there are 20 NGOs in Thailand and Cambodia and increase effective support from global and regional law firms. LA has also onboarded investigative and asset tracing firms that are able to offer expertise in investigations supporting legal matters. Specialist attorneys hired for the Hub in both Thailand and Cambodia provide on the ground presence essential to further trust building amongst partners. A full list of law firms and attorneys engaging with the Hub can be found in Annex VI.

LA has engaged civil society groups and agencies throughout the region. They include: Labour Rigths Promotion Network Foundation (LPN), Migrant Workers Rights Network (MWRN), Nvader, Human Rights and Development Foundation (HRDF), International Justice Mission (IJM), Migrants Assistance Programme (MAP) Foundation, Alliance Anti-Trafic (AAT), Myanmar Workers Association, Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA), Legal Support for Children and Women (LSCW), Central, Hagar International, Action Pour les Enfants (APLE), International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC), Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO), A21, Tenaganita, Fortify Rights, Thai and Migrant Fisher Union Group, Aid Alliance Committee for Myanmar Workers, Chab Dai, IOM,

15 | P a g e

International Labour Organization (ILO), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), UN- ACT, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNOHCHR) and the Bali Process.

LA launched the Hub in August of this year, marking the commencement of formal relationships between the initial 20 NGOs and 10 law firms at NGO stakeholder meetings in Thailand and Cambodia and a law firm stakeholder meeting in Thailand. The NGO Stakeholder Meeting in Bangkok was held on August 25 and attended by MWRN, LPN, Nvader, AAT, IJM, HRDF, Fortify Rights, Aid Alliance Committee for Myanmar Workers, Thai and Migrant Fisher Union Group, ILO, HRLA and UNACT. The Cambodia Stakeholder meeting was held on September 1 and was attended by: LSCW, APLE, IJM, ADHOC. Central, Hagar and Licadho. The purpose of these meetings was to launch the Hub, introduce the work objectives, build community and discuss with the group priority areas for policy and legal work, such as, represent victims, work on developing different causes of actions, assist and pursue corporate accountability strategies, and develop training and analysis materials.

Based on suggestions from participants at the meeting in Thailand, LA will conduct 2 litigation focused workshops that aim to share learnings and best practice and also highlight the experiences of NGOs working in this space. In Cambodia, NGOs highlighted issues relating to compensation, video link evidence and the need for a greater understanding of financial investigations and how they might impact trafficking investigations and prosecutions. In response, LA is initiating research in relation to compensation, and video link evidence. They will also design training relating to financial investigations and are assisting with 6 cases of civil claims for compensation in the US against US perpetrators convicted of exploiting Cambodian children. LA is using its global network of lawyers and investigation firms to support this initiative in partnership with local NGOs.

The Law Firm Stakeholder meeting in Bangkok was held on August 25, 2017 and was attended by: Herbert Smith Freehills, Weerawong, Chinnavat and Partners (WCP), Allen and Overy, Linklaters, and Baker and Mackenzie. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the Hub and to better understand areas for collaboration with different firms as some firms prioritize research and others direct representation. As a result of the meeting, LA has been able to enlist the support of law firms to support research as well as develop a strategy around human rights due diligence and mergers and acquisitions work to engage local firms.

The learning from these workshops will form the basis of further engagement with corporate accountability mechanisms and regulations and the creation of a best practices white paper that will be launched and disseminated on Freedom Collaborative.

The Hub although formally launched is still at the point of establishing its presence and building trust. It is thus supporting matters that are being brought to LA’s attention by partners. Once the volume of requests increases, the Hub will need to focus on matters of a strategic nature using some (but not necessarily limited to) the following criteria: numbers of victims, amount of compensation sought, corporate accountability issues, and impact with respect to law and policy.

Currently cases being referred through the Hub include:

• Referral in Thailand from an NGO partner in Cambodia for 15 Cambodian nationals arrested in Thailand for possession of forged documents. The individuals were convicted and sentenced for 12 years. LA is trying to obtain the court transcript to assess the merits of an appeal. This matter is of interest as it is part of a growing number of cases of individuals paying large sums of money and being deceived about the authenticity of documents they are provided with and the nature of the work opportunities they are being directed to. • Supporting evidence gathering effort in cross-border case of Cambodia nationals trafficked into the Thai seafood fishing. The trial starts in January in the US under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).

16 | P a g e

LA anticipates being able to reach a larger cross-section of non-legal experts as well through a space being developed on LA’s online platform Freedom Collaborative. This space, to be launched early next year, is intended as a community support tool where members can identify and engage with each other to access and post training, hold online discussions and webinars and access a wide range of consistently updated resource materials.

(Contributes to: FM2.2 Improved information sharing among CSOs; Indicator 2.2.1: Percentage of CSOs reporting increased access to CTIP services by vulnerable populations)

Task 2.6 Improve information sharing among CSOs through the Freedom Collaborative platform

The Freedom Collaborative network includes a total of 539 organizations. New members are identified and selected through recommendations of existing members. In Year One, Freedom Collaborative increased its network by 151associate organizations, including 85 in Asia and the Middle- East; 665 individuals also created user accounts during this period. LA focused on organizations in destination countries and working with forced labor, targeting key industries including construction, fishing, domestic work and palm oil. The addition of members from destination countries is expected to increase support to source country members for case follow-up of returning victims, development of pre-departure trainings and mapping of recruitment fees. Such an increase in members offers additional space and opportunities for CSOs to engage and share information through the platform. The recent addition of NGOs from the Gulf and Middle East enables the community to build better connections in destination countries where access and information is limited and difficult to obtain.

Freedom Collaborative has also stimulated increased interaction and knowledge sharing through seven webinars on TIP issues such as transnational referral mechanisms, trafficking in the fishing industry, and child protection in the context of TIP. The webinars reached 177 community members. Feedback from participants highlighted the value of mutli-disciplinary discussions and perspectives as well as the value of the platform to initiate further dialogue among participants on a one-to-one basis. The webinar on Forced Labor in the International Fishing Industry brought together representatives from groups including Greenpeace, the Global Initiative Against Transnational Crime, IJM, UNU, International Labor Rights Forum, US Department of Justice, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, along with 24 representatives of Asian organizations. Issues discussed included the impact of the TIP report and European Union Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU) regulation system, research and evidence gaps, challenges to collaboration, steps to address transshipping, certification schemes that require addressing labor abuse. Recordings have been watched 90 times.

In addition, Freedom Collaborative developed new features to promote and ensure improved access to information and contributions from its members, including a number of technical adjustments to facilitate easier reading and simplify functional offerings. Private working groups within the platform space were developed to facilitate coordinated action through partnerships and dialogue. The intent is to provide a space to bring together stakeholders from a field around a topic, collect examine and coordinate ideas for action and partnership. This year groups around fishing, freedom businesses and Asia-region specific learning were initiated. In addition, FC is setting up an online space for the Legal Impact Hub (Task 2.5 described above).

The results of these efforts will be tracked over the course of the project. FC worked with Winrock’s USAID CTIP MEL Specialist this year to collect baseline data to allow the project over the coming years to track monitor how FC activities enhance members’ access to information, resources and communication, increase partnerships and thus, improve their service delivery.

(Contributes to: FM2.2 Improved information sharing among CSOs; Indicator 2.2.1: Percentage of CSOs reporting increased access to CTIP services by vulnerable populations)

17 | P a g e

FORCE MULTIPLIER 3: REDUCED INCENTIVES FOR TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS THROUGH PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT

Under FM3, USAID Asia CTIP aims to encourage and support the private sector to take action to reduce TIP. Project implementing partners working on FM 3 each take a unique approach to private sector engagement:

• SSG approaches private sector engagement through the development of a shared value partnership that can be applicable across the region. • The Mekong Club engages companies through its co-creation and supportive association model and working groups. • Liberty Asia seeks to engage banks and companies through enforcement of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations and thus disrupt the operations of businesses that enable TIP.

This multi-faceted approach is intended to address a dynamic private sector landscape comprised of diverse companies and industries facing a multitude of challenges around TIP and responding in unique ways and at different levels.

In Year One, FM 3 activities focused on gaining a deeper understanding of the business environment and companies, particularly in construction, domestic work, agriculture and seafood sectors which were identified as priority sectors for the project. The results of this learning will form the basis for the development of partnerships and direct action with companies throughout the life of the project.

FM 3.1 increased private sector action to reduce tip

Task 3.1: Conduct a Private Sector Landscape Assessment (PSLA) and identify strategic partnerships to reduce tip

SSG designed and conducted a Private Sector Landscape Assessment (PSLA), mapping key private sector actors within the TIP landscape and identifying opportunities to leverage private sector influence, skills, and resources to achieve greater impact and sustainability for USAID Asia CTIP across the target sectors of agriculture, fishing, construction, and domestic work.

After extensive desk research to identify Figure 2: PSLA Key Informant relevant companies and stakeholders as well as Interviews by Sector high-level examination and analysis of stakeholder’s current CTIP efforts, SSG reached Seafood/Fisheries out to over 110 companies and organizations. Retail This outreach targeted multi-national or large NGO companies with supply chains across the lower Media Mekong region. This approach provided SSG Hospitality/Toursim with a pool of companies with the reach and Government maturity in regard to their commitment and Foundation approaches to TIP concerns necessary to roll Finance out innovative and challenging partnerships. Domestic Work Interviews were focused on global and Asian multi-national companies and related Consulting Services stakeholders in the construction, agriculture, Construction seafood, fisheries, domestic work, banking and Association finance and ICT sectors. See Figure 2 left for a Agriculture full breakdown of KII by sector 0 5 10 15 20 25

18 | P a g e

SSG conducted 75 in-depth key informant interviews (KIIs) with companies (63%), NGOs (22%), industry associations (8%), and government stakeholders (7%) in the Asia-Pacific region, the United States, and Europe (the companies in the U.S. and Europe are multinationals with operations in our priority geography). SSG sought to understand each organization’s objectives, commercial or organizational challenges, and existing corporate social responsibility or other activities related to USAID Asia CTIP’s objectives.

The PSLA confirmed several assumptions about challenges faced by both companies and vulnerable workers. Key findings from the PSLA report and how they relate to the partnership development are as follows:

• Companies are at different levels of maturity in terms of addressing TIP. Companies’ understanding of the issue, commitment to action and responses to TIP range across a wide spectrum. Some global leaders, especially those facing legal and regulatory compliance, fall under the ‘mature’ to ‘leader’ categories, while most Asian companies are categorized as ‘inactive’ or ‘followers’.

Figure 3: Maturity Spectrum of Companies on TIP

• Despite companies being overwhelmed by the large number of stakeholders, initiatives, policies and regulations, resources and technologies in the CTIP space, they still struggle with visibility in the lower tiers of their supply chains. Companies are asking for additional support from human rights or labor experts to help them take concrete action to address these risks. As a direct response to this finding, several of the initial partnership concept notes developed focus on assisting companies to increase visibility in the lower tiers of their supply chain.

• There is a lack of trust between key stakeholders, contributing to a siloed- approach for CTIP with each group working on its own. At-risk workers and trafficking survivors lack trust in their employers, the government, and even initiatives that are intended to support them. In their fear and mistrust, they continue to face obstacles such as recruitment fees, debt bondage, lack-of/confiscation of identification documents and the fear of legal ramifications if they try to speak up (in Thailand, defamation is a criminal offense with many companies taking this approach to keep workers quiet or just being fired). At the same time, companies often do not trust NGOs or government. Past campaigns that have ‘named and shamed’ companies have taught them to avoid potential risky issues.

Based on this work SSG identified and developed concepts for 10 possible partnerships as indicated in the chart below, recommending 5 to USAID for follow up by USAID Asia CTIP, one - for follow up of the USAID Thailand CTIP project; one - for support from the USAID Asia CTIP Innovation Lab; and three concepts were de-prioritized for further development at this time. Recommendations were based on the following criteria:

• Address root causes of TIP;

19 | P a g e

• Additive, rather than duplicative or replicative; • Engage the private sector as a critical stakeholder; • Ensure strategic alignment between development and business objectives; • Facilitate shared value and collaborative ownership; • Actionable and practically feasible.

Partnerships developed are expected to PSLA Partnership Concepts be strategic, serve as a model to Recommended for USAID Asia CTIP illustrate private sector action against Migration Fee Almanac Supply Chain + Legal Remedy (palm oil) TIP, contribute beyond just the company TIP Data Action Center (construction) involved to relevant industry groups or Safe Finance associations, be duplicable across the Hospitality Sector Supply Chain Risk region and leverage all partners’ Recommended for Pursuit Otherwise expertise and capabilities. CTIP Cryptocurrency (recommended for Innovation Lab) Asian Supply Chain Risk (recommended for Thailand Project) (Contributes to FM3.1 Increased private De-prioritized sector action to reduce TIP Indicator 3.1.1.: Digital ID Number of actions by private sector to Migrant Worker Social Listening reduce risks in TIP) Technology for Migrant Workers in the Fishing Sector4

Task 3.2: Build trust and enable private sector action to reduce tip

Findings from the PSLA were mirrored by results from the Mekong Club’s annual private sector survey, especially in terms of companies’ need for additional support to enable operational changes to identify TIP within their supply chain, and for more information or trainings on TIP for their staff and supply chain partners. Survey responses from 36 companies, including TMC’s member companies and other Hong Kong-based companies that have reached out to TMC, aims to understand what companies are currently doing on modern slavery in supply chains, and where additional support may be required. It is intended to not only collect information on the private sector and TIP but also to strengthen trust between TMC and its members and to encourage companies to act against TIP. (Please see Annex VII for further details on responses to the TMC survey.)

TMC will use the findings of this survey to support its members and its Association Model Working Groups currently covering the footwear and apparel, retail, hospitality and banking and finance industries. During this year, they convened 3 Association Model Working Groups to review feedback from the survey and the suggestions made by participating companies to improve and expand the tools. The tools will be piloted by TMC member companies in Year Two and, once finalized, shared widely:

• Remediation Toolkit: The Toolkit is comprised of four core sections: preparation, communication, investigation, and remedy. It is accompanied by a legal guide for seven Asian countries (China, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar and Malaysia, and Hong Kong), covering applicable labor laws, and company responsibilities where they have evidence a crime has been committed. • Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM): This map-based tool for manufacturers is being developed to assess the level of forced labor risk associated with specific materials (cotton, rubber, leather, etc.). During the reporting period, TMC secured two major data sets from

4Although this concept was not prioritized for immediate implementation, USAID Asia CTIP continues to work with the USAID OCEANS project to explore collaboration on improving labor or TIP standards or introducing new tools for boats or the industry.

20 | P a g e

international audit companies. As TMC continues to acquire data from audit companies, the plan will be to expand the materials to include a range of additional products. • RAM for Banks: This tool helps banks to identity if “red flags” might be present with prospective clients. During the reporting period, the Mekong Club secured data sets from the following sources: US Department of Labor - Bureau of International Labor’s List of Products produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor; Verite's High Risk Commodity Atlas; Global Slavery Index 2016; and Trafficking in Persons Report 2016 to complete this tool. • E-learning Films: Six e-learning films and supporting infographics were developed and translated into Mandarin, Cantonese and Vietnamese: migrant workers recruitment guidelines; anti-slavery legislation issues; anti-slavery legislation guidelines; modern slavery and financial service sector issue; modern slavery and financial service sector guidelines; and modern slavery and the hospitality sector issues.

Further to their efforts to engage companies and build trust to facilitate their understanding of TIP and commitment to take action, TMC appointed Mr. Mark Devadason as its lead Private Sector Ambassador. Over the course of the year, he met with the Mizuho Bank in Japan, the Stock Exchange (SET) and Commerce International Merchant’s (CIMG) Bank in Thailand and the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS). At these meetings, Mr. Devdason introduced the Asia/Pacific Banker’s Alliance, a joint Reuters/Mekong Club Initiative. The core aim of the Alliance will be to map the financial footprint of human trafficking in the formal banking system and to develop red flag indicators for suspicious activity, tailored to the Asia Pacific region. This Alliance will include an analysis of the nexus between the banking world and the USAID Asia CTIP priority sectors (construction, domestic work and fishing/agriculture).

This year, TMC also initiated preparation for its awareness raising presentations and outreach planned for Year Two in Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia. This includes work on internal country specific private sector background reports to prepare for and provide content for upcoming awareness raising presentations in each country.

(Contributes to FM3.1 Increased private sector action to reduce TIP Indicator 3.1.1.: Number of actions by private sector to reduce risks in TIP)

Task 3.3: Engage financial decision makers to disrupt illicit financial flows that enable TIP

Because the offense of money laundering is based on concealing the profits of other crimes, the financial flows associated with the crime of human trafficking fall under the global anti-money laundering enforcement framework.5 Until recently, efforts to combat TIP - one of the most profitable criminal activities in the world that generates an estimated USD 150 billion a year of illegal proceeds6 - have not focused on addressing money flows associated with the crime. The CTIP and anti-money laundry stakeholders often work in isolation with financial institutions and investigators often lacking knowledge on TIP operations to effectively stop financial flows.

In an effort to address this significant gap and building on the highly specialized expertise of its implementing partner Liberty Asia, USAID Asia CTIP has mapped the financial flows associated with TIP and produced three typologies7 identifying various business actors who may be coming in contact with TIP-related proceeds, thus exposing them to compliance risks under anti-money laundry

5 http://www.fatf- gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Trafficking%20in%20Human%20Beings%20and%20Smuggling%20of%20Migrants.pdf 6 http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_243201/lang--en/index.htm 7 To identify money laundering risk, financial institutions use a tool called a ‘typology’ which maps the profits and financial flows associated with illicit economic activity.

21 | P a g e

regulations. The three typologies completed in Year One included two on the Thai fishing sector and one on the textile sector in Bangladesh and they documented the estimated revenue from the business operations of approximately USD386 million with over 2,000 estimated victims identified.8

With the completed typologies, Liberty Asia made 17 calls to banks and distributed information to 10 global financial institutions, 3 due diligence firms, 4 government agencies and 1 financial intelligence unit. This is intended to incite decision makers to act on their requirement to enforce anti-money laundering regulations. For a bank, this would include passing information to regulatory or relevant law enforcement agencies; for due diligence firms, the information might be added to data bases and/or watch lists; while regulatory and law enforcement firms might open full investigations.

In addition to sharing specific typology information with individual financial institutions, Liberty Asia conducted broader advocacy to further bridge the gap between CTIP and AML communities and highlight the link between the two crimes. In particular, they engaged three major international bodies to further strengthen the use of the global anti-money laundering regime to advance CTIP efforts in the Asia region and globally. The three bodies were: a) Asia Pacific Group – an intergovernmental body spanning 41 countries/jurisdictions in the Asia/ Pacific region committed to the effective implementation and enforcement of standards against money laundering’ b) Egmont Group – an international financial intelligence forum for 155 financial intelligence units established by respective countries and comprising of law enforcement and judicial authorities; and c) Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a key intergovernmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. The table below shows the events attended by Liberty Asia in Year One, presenting typologies to their members or conducting TIP awareness-raising presentations. In most of these engagements, Liberty Asia was the only civil society representative invited, contributing an important perspective of affected victims, communities and understanding of TIP modus operandi with survivor-centered approach, something that financial due diligence institutions are not able to do.

Liberty Asia Engagement with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Regulatory Bodies

FATF Plenary Presented at FATF Risk Threats Mitigation Group (“RTMG”) on Human Trafficking (Paris, February and Terrorist Financing, together with UN Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate 2017) “CTED”) and Interpol Counter-Terrorism Directorate. This was in direct response to UN Security Council Resolution 2331 (2016) which directed the FATF to look at financial flows from human trafficking. Sole NGO representative invited. FATF RTMG Presented at main plenary session (together with Australia, Canada, and UN) on Joint Experts Human Trafficking and AML; participated in a separate workshop on Human Meeting Trafficking and AML, presenting alongside the UN, 2 global financial institutions, a (Moscow, April global payment service provider, and 3 Financial Intelligence Units (“FIUs”) 2017) - FATF - Asia Met Executive Secretariat in Dec 2016; APG are developing a concept note on Pacific Group on Human Trafficking for its members and Liberty Asia have been invited to present at Money the APG Plenary for its 41 Asia / Pacific members in mid-July 2017 in Sri Lanka (see Laundering http://www.apgml.org/members-and-observers ); (“APGML”) - FATF - Met the Chairman in March 2017, Human trafficking is a key concern for its members; Committee of Liberty Asia have been invited to present at the MONEYVAL Plenary for its 34 Experts on the European members in late-Sept 2017 (see Evaluation of http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/moneyval/About/Members_and_observers_en.as Anti-Money p )

8 Liberty Asia calculates an estimate of the generated revenue illustrated in each typology using a combination of information from media articles, company reports, SEC filings, legal actions, other reports, and trade data from the countries represented in each typology. The estimated number of victims is compiled by collating information reported from NGOs, its VCMS database, media, and industry experts. Using an iterative methodology, Liberty Asia continuously refines its estimates as new information is received.

22 | P a g e

Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (“MONEYVAL” ) Egmont Group Met the Executive Secretariat in March 2017; nominated to be invited to the Egmont of FIUs Plenary Meeting in July 2017 to raise the issue of Human Trafficking with its 155 members (see https://www.egmontgroup.org/content/about ) Asia Pacific Met in Sri Lanka in June 2017. Liberty Asia invited to present and participate. Group of FIUs Asia Pacific To meet in South Korea in November 2017. Liberty Asia asked to bring several Group of FIUs NGOs and banks to discuss the broader issues.

These advocacy efforts have already led to increased interest and information requests from financial institutions and are expected to result in increased scrutiny on the part of banks and investors and shrunk space for traffickers to launder their assets. Compliance as a critical driver pushing financial institutions to disrupt money flows related to TIP mirrors findings from the PSLA and the TMC Survey noted above as to the significance of compliance as a driver behind companies taking action in their supply chains and operations to combat labor exploitation and TIP.

Finally, starting in Year Two, USAID Asia CTIP plans to use the produced typologies to increase understanding of TIP patterns in key sectors by other actors, especially those doing business in the Asia region, through improved risk assessment and TIP identification efforts.

(Contributes to FM3.1 Increased private sector action to reduce TIP Indicator 3.1.1.: Number of actions by private sector to reduce risks in TIP)

Task 3.4: Develop an Innovation Lab

In this first year, the USAID Asia CTIP met with a range of IT and technology companies to explore possibilities for an Innovation Lab and the applications of new technology to support CTIP. USAID Asia CTIP also looked at what has been tried (including Apps, hackathons and social media campaigns). Under the PSLA, SSG assembled an ICT team to support research and outreach specifically related to ICT providers, developers and users. The team analyzed a range of existing ICT solutions, interventions and potential opportunities for collaboration The most promising result is a proposed concept for a CTIP cryptocurrency in partnership with Freeland, a CTIP NGO, and with Lykke, a Swiss Fintech company that operates a Blockchain exchange and wallet. RDMA has expressed interest and is exploring its potential internally.

(Contributes to FM3.1 Increased private sector action to reduce TIP Indicator 3.1.1.: Number of actions by private sector to reduce risks in TIP)

B. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

In Year One, management efforts largely centered on building and coordinating the USAID Asia CTIP team, setting up operations in Bangkok, negotiating and finalizing sub-awards with implementing partners and establishing the project’s presence and place among the CTIP community.

Winrock, leveraged its presence and experience on the ground to quickly launch project operations in Bangkok, including signing employment agreements and mobilizing key personnel, completing recruitment for remaining staff, operationalizing financial and operational processes, securing office space, and completing initial procurement. Winrock also introduced project partners and stakeholders to the project through a joint USAID-Winrock press release, a webinar for core partners and

23 | P a g e

collaborating organizations and a series of introductory meetings with key CTIP actors representing the USG, UN agencies, civil society, the private sector and research organizations.

At a partners meeting in March, all four implementing partners came together in Bangkok to get to know each other, build a common understanding of the project and each organization’s role, and together prepare the Year One workplan. Sub-awards were finalized and all partners were active throughout the year as detailed above. The second partner work-planning meeting occurred in August and focused on project Year Two planning and activities.

IV. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES – ASSOCIATE AWARDS AND COUNTRY PROGRAM COORDINATION

A. ASSOCIATE AWARDS

USAID Thailand Counter Trafficking in Persons (USAID Thailand CTIP). During the reporting period, the USAID Thailand CTIP award was signed and the project mobilization commenced, including preparation of the Year One Work Plan, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan and Gender Analysis and Action Plan.

USAID Laos Counter Trafficking in Persons (USAID Laos CTIP). During the reporting period, the USAID Laos CTIP award was signed and the project mobilization commenced, including liaison with the Government of Laos on organizational and project registration and preparation of the Year One Work Plan, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan and Gender Analysis and Action Plan.

B. COUNTRY PROGRAM COORDINATION Introduction of Project to Asia Missions: In June Winrock presented the project to bi-lateral Missions on a call organized by RDMA. Participating on the call were representatives of the Cambodia, Indonesia, ASEAN, Thailand and Bangladesh Missions. After an introduction to the overarching goals of the project, Winrock presented details on activities to-date and upcoming plans and took questions on how the project could support and work together with country level programs on CTIP.

Coordination and support to USAID bilateral programs in Asia: The USAID Asia CTIP staff is reaching out and providing technical assistance and building technical ties to USAID bilateral CTIP programs in Asia. The USAID Asia CTIP Capacity Development and Policy Advocacy Advisor and the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Specialist provided support and technical assistance to the Cambodia CTIP team on separate trips to Phnom Penh. The Cambodia CTIP Policy Specialist and a representative of Legal Support for Children and Women, an important partner to the Cambodia program, attended a PEA workshop organized by RDMA for USAID Asia CTIP. Their participation was intended to provide capacity building in support of Cambodia CTIP initiatives, as well as provide the USAID Asia CTIP with in-country resources to support project PEA knowledge and information gathering and ongoing PEA initiatives.

The Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal M&E Specialists worked closely with the USAID Asia CTIP MEL Specialist as members of the M&E Working Group. Thailand and Laos M&E staff will also join the WG, once the projects are operationalized next year.

Through the WG and on-site visits, country and regional M&E teams identified the following M&E challenges facing bilateral CTIP projects:

1. M&E plans do not adequately describe how a performance evaluation(s) and, in some cases, impact evaluation(s) will be undertaken including key evaluation questions to be tested.

24 | P a g e

2. CTIP interventions are often structured in a way that makes it difficult to measure impact rather than just conduct an output/outcome level evaluation. 3. Speaking the language of an external evaluator: clarity is needed to decide what is worth measuring and how should we (remaining technically sound, politically correct and compliant) proactively engage in the evaluation process.

In response, USAID Asia CTIP and Winrock USAID CTIP identified responses that USAID Asia CTIP might provide to support country programs as detailed in Annex VIII

V. MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E)

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: The USAID Asia CTIP M&E Plan was developed and submitted to RDMA with the Year One Workplan in March. The Plan is designed to serve as a management tool and accountability mechanism to measure project progress as well as to capture learning about CTIP as a technical area and how it supports collaborating, learning, and adapting development principles.

The emphasis on learning and CLA principles requires a beyond indicator-based monitoring approach because learning and adaptive management deals with experimentation and testing of ideas and innovation. To cope with this challenge, the M&E Plan follows guidance provided in USAID’s Complexity-aware Monitoring and CLA resources. Annex IX provides USAID Asia CTIP indicators, including baseline data, Year One progress, and annual and life of award targets.

M&E Management Information System: USAID Asia CTIP uses DevResults, a web-based, performance-monitoring database for Winrock, implementing partners and RDMA/USAID. The structural foundation of the database (result frameworks, key indicators, definition, measurement, disaggregation, reporting etc.) has been finalized and the website is on line (ctip6794.devresults.com) with inputted data from partners for Year One achievements. Training for partners and the development of customized dashboards are scheduled in the first quarter of Year Two.

VI. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RDMA DEVELOPMENT SCREENS

RDMA’s three ‘smart development screens’ -- science and technology, partnerships and gender equality and female empowerment -- are embedded in the USAID Asia CTIP project design and are among the guiding principles of implementation.

Science and Technology: USAID Asia CTIP is intended to strengthen understanding of human trafficking, CTIP interventions, and their collective interaction in the region. FM1 activities will reinforce and expand the CTIP evidence base, including improving the quality and usage of empirical data associated with human trafficking. Throughout the year, discussions were held with Winrock’s IT specialists and a range of companies from established, large multinationals such as Microsoft to smaller, locally based start-ups such as Love Frankie to harness technology and analytics around the development of a methodology to systematically aggregate and analyze data from existing datasets and new sources, and provide workers, migrants and those working to combat TIP access to this information and the most efficient and effective CTIP actions. In addition, SSG included an ICT component in its PSLA to explore the applications of Blockchain technology, cryptocurrency and data analytics technologies, including predictive analytics to, for example, use a company’s analytic capacity and access to extensive data to understand and mitigate the risk of TIP in their operations and supply chains. These efforts are intended to support a rollout of appropriate data solutions in Year Two.

25 | P a g e

Partnerships: USAID Asia CTIP draws on a wide and diverse partner network to engage in a broad range of cross-sector and strategic partnerships, including private sector alliances, nonprofit organizations and think tanks, local research and learning institutions, technology companies, and research/policy grantees, to effectively implement a multi-sectoral response to combat TIP. All project activities are based on the belief that strategic partnerships are designed to multiply impact by unlocking the strengths of different stakeholders and harnessing their comparative advantages, such as convening power, local relationships, regional networks, policy influence, credibility, funding, technical expertise and services, access to supply chains and markets, and technology. Details on partnership development and outreach are provided in this year’s description of activities above in Section III A.

Gender Equality: In August, USAID Asia CTIP’s Gender and Social Inclusion (GESI) Advisor came on board to lead project efforts to ensure that a GESI lens is used in the design and implementation of all project interventions. Research will be analyzed with attention to the extent to which male, female and transgender respondents are included and it pays attention to other social signifiers like age, nationality and ethnicity. Activities are designed and monitored to consider any GESI related impacts (direct and indirect), cultural and contextual appropriateness, accessibility for various target populations, privacy and security considerations. Gender indicators included were incorporated in the M&E Plan to identify GESI outcomes as well as impacts.

In addition, the GESI Advisor is working with all project implementing partners to assess internal GESI capacity and technical assistance needs. The assessment will be incorporated in a GESI Action Plan to be completed early in Year Two.

VII. CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

USAID Asia CTIP is ambitious in scope and intent. Our approach is rooted in CLA and includes learning as a core output in addition to the learning embedded in our monitoring and evaluation function. This provides us with unique opportunities to understand the drivers behind TIP and how to most effectively combat TIP. It also, however, presents operational challenges as it is in some ways a new operational mode not always or easily accommodated within standard USAID project rules and regulations and reliance on quick results and outputs.

USAID Asia CTIP implementing partners are comprised of a diverse group with deep and distinct experiences and approaches to CTIP. Building a common understanding and approach, both programmatically and operationally, among the partners has been an important and ongoing element underpinning Year One initiatives. This has meant that more time has often been needed to implement and secure information, delaying activities in the short term. At the same time though, it also provides the project and each partner with a strong foundation for partnership and a holistic approach to implementation for the coming project years.

Additionally, initiation of implementation has raised questions and challenged some of our initial assumptions.

• In FM 1, dependence on formal research through the Research Review and development of the EBP roadmap has indicated the need to ensure that we capture local knowledge and data that may not be internet or English accessible. Through careful criteria for selection and priorities for issues addressed, USAID Asia CTIP will use the Windows of Opportunity Fund and research grants, as well as further explore existing data from bi-lateral CTIP projects’ M&E data which contains significant contextual and experiential knowledge from frontline partners to address this challenge. • FM 2 was originally designed based on the assumption that the primary entry point to secure the implementation of ACTIP and regional policy responses to TIP would be through ASEAN.

26 | P a g e

Consultations and initial assessments indicate that the project might rather prioritize national and bi-lateral mechanisms and engagement as a more effective strategy. • Private sector partnerships are intended to help companies identify, address and reduce risk of TIP in operations and supply chains. This presents a clear challenge should, through a USAID Asia CTIP partnership, actual incidences of TIP be identified. Processes and protocols for managing such a situation will need to be developed and agreed upon by all partners as part of any partnership agreement so as not to expose the project, USAID or any implementing partner to legal risk. SSG is developing due diligence procedures to mitigate this risk as well as protocols to employ if such a risk arises once a partnership is underway.

VIII. FUTURE DIRECTION AND UPCOMING ACTIVITIES

Year One analysis, assessment and research laid the ground work for USAID Asia CTIP to support, with grants and technical assistance and through strategic partnerships with the private sector, civil society and government, the expansion and dissemination of learning, the piloting and testing of EBPs and the generation of knowledge and data and action to combat TIP in Year Two and throughout the life of the project.

Key activities by FM planned for Year Two include:

Force Multiplier 1

• Convene the first project Learning Summit to share and solicit input on project and external research, assessments and learning in Year One, as well as to prioritize key areas for research and action among the broader CTIP community. • Establish an Evidence Based Practice Committee comprised of at least 3 experts on CTIP, research and M&E and a Committee Facilitator to identify and prioritize EBPs as part of the learning agenda, and for dissemination and testing and piloting in country programs or through Windows of Opportunity grants. • Research proposals from local organizations will be solicited and awarded for work on topics based on the outcome of NEXUS’s Research Review and feedback at the Learning Summit. Similarly, proposals will be requested and grants awarded to multi-disciplinary teams working on policy issues. • Development of methodology and indicator for measurement of USAID CTIP interventions, including the development of simple, accessible reference or guidance tools for practitioners and funders to use in designing, prioritizing and selecting counter-trafficking interventions to implement. • Test proximate determinate methodology through pilots in one pair of source and destination countries of USAID CTIP projects (e.g. Cambodia and Thailand, Nepal and Malaysia). • Work with USAID CTIP Projects in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Nepal and Bangladesh on: impact evaluation design/preparation; design and implement performance evaluations; and facilitate a knowledge exchange platform to collect, analyze and share key indicators from bilateral projects for learning and adaptive management purposes.

Force Multiplier 2

• Finalize the development of the “foundational blocks” for the design and implementation of strategies to engage with ASEAN through a well rolled-out transition phase of CTIP activities from PROGRESS, and supporting CSOs influencing strategies towards the practical implementation of ACTIP and bilateral frameworks. • Completion of CSLA and PEA (report and/or process).

27 | P a g e

• Expansion of the Legal Impact Hub with a focus on the identification of needs and provision of capacity building to NGOs, law firms and corporations based in Asia on human trafficking and forced labor issues as well as on strategic litigation, towards developing and implementing effective legal strategies to combat TIP. • Freedom Collaborative continue its research and identifies CSOs working in key destination countries, targeting East Asia and the Middle East as well as companies, and undertake visits for partnership building and needs assessments. Liberty Asia will set up new industry forum groups (including agriculture, apparel, construction, fishing, palm oil, rubber). • Freedom Collaborative will continue to host webinars that address capacity building needs and industry specific discussions, the first ones being fishing, construction. • VCMS is planning to double its user base from 150 users in the region to over 300. Liberty Asia will provide partners with training sessions in the area of record keeping crucial to ensure data points around victim identification and exploitation are accurately recorded.

Force Multiplier 3

• SSG will expand prioritized PSLA concept notes with participating private sector partners through a co-creation process, negotiation and signing of MoUs and the implementation of the partnerships. • Liberty Asia will continue its research and dissemination of 4 financial typologies that show continued engagement of AML regulatory bodies. • USAID Asia CTIP will anonymize select typologies to disseminate learning to companies, to help them understand and mitigate risk from the lower tiers in their supply chains. • The Mekong Club will reach out to companies in 6 countries, starting with Bangladesh in November, to raise awareness about the relevance and risk of TIP to business and engage interested companies to take action. They will also replicate their Association Model in priority USAID Asia CTIP countries.

28 | P a g e

ANNEX I: USAID Asia CTIP Preliminary Learning Agenda and Roadmap for Promoting Evidence Based Practices

I. Background USAID and Winrock International have partnered to combat trafficking in persons through the 5- year USAID Asia CTIP Project. Winrock is joined by five implementing partners with specialized expertise: The Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, Liberty Asia, the Mekong Club, the NEXUS Institute and SSG Advisors. The Project emphasizes strengthened learning, collaboration and private- sector engagement to combat trafficking-in-persons.

The Project’s Force Multiplier 1 FM1: Knowledge and Learning on TIP and CTIP Implementation strengthened aims to strengthen learning and interventions around trafficking in persons. Under FM 1, three sub-areas identify how knowledge and learning on TIP is strengthened. FM 1.1 identifies “increased use of evidence base for USAID TIP interventions” as a key contribution to FM 1 achievement. This concept note aims to elaborate how the project shall promote the use of “evidence based practice” as stated in FM 1.1.

II. Conceptual framework What is evidence based practice?9 According to Puddy and Wilkins (2011), an evidence-based practice (EBP) is a component or activity informed by or built on the best available research evidence that is combined with the experiential evidence of field-based expertise and contextual evidence.

• The Best Available Research Evidence. The designation of best available research evidence acknowledges the fact that in areas of CTIP, the research evidence is still being developed. It determines whether or not a prevention program, practice, or policy is actually achieving the outcomes it aims to and in the way it intends. Rigorous data collection on a strategy’s effectiveness yields strong research evidence indicating whether or not a program, practice, or policy is effective.

9 Puddy, R. W. & Wilkins, N. (2011). Understanding Evidence Part 1: Best Available Research Evidence. A Guide to the Continuum of Evidence of Effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Online at: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/understanding_evidence-a.pdf (Retrieved: October 2, 2017)

29 | P a g e

• Experiential Evidence: This type of evidence is based on the professional insight, understanding, skill, and expertise that is accumulated over time and is often referred to as intuitive or tacit knowledge. • Contextual Evidence: This type of evidence is based on factors that address whether a strategy is useful, feasible to implement, and accepted by a particular community.

These three facets of evidence, while distinct, also overlap and are important and necessary aspects of making evidence- based decisions.

As shown in Figure 1, evidence based decision making occurs when the best available research evidence is combined with the experiential evidence of field-based expertise and contextual evidence.

An Evidence-based practice (EBP) in ASIA CTIP context Evidence of the results of counter-trafficking interventions includes ‘promising’ practices, lessons learned, formal research and anecdotal observations which constitute an evolving knowledge base that could be used to strengthen the design and evaluation of counter-trafficking responses. In addition, other sectors or disciplines (for example, criminal justice, public health, and social protection) have accumulated a rich body of often evidence-based knowledge highly relevant to the counter trafficking sector (ICAT, 2016, p.vi and NEXUS Research Review p.5).

III. Strategy and Mechanism on how USAID Asia CTIP can promote EBPs on CTIP (please see Annex 2: Visual of EBP work) There is a growing body of accumulated knowledge about workable and non-workable counter- trafficking strategies and responses, but it is not consistently used to inform program design10. To promote the “increased use of evidence base for USAID TIP interventions” to strengthen learning and interventions around trafficking in persons, in Year 1 USAID Asia CTIP has consolidated EBP building blocks (NEXUS Research Review, country CTIP program data, USAID Asia CTIP literature review) and informed by the learning agenda will be followed up with a series of activities in Year 2 as described below to: 1) nominate and process promising EBPs, 2) distribute and promote evidence, and 3) support the application of evidence on CTIP. 3.1 Consolidating EBP Building Blocks and Learning Agenda A point of departure for an effective effort in accumulating and using learning about TIP is a CTIP community-owned learning agenda that is informed by research, experience and contextual evidence from the CTIP community (NEXUS, 2017, p.16). In Year 1, the focus of USAID Asia CTIP was on consolidating these building blocks as an evidence base for further EBP management. Based on the processes that are described in detail below, the proposed learning agenda for the EBP processes are:

10 Marshall, Phil (2016). Ibid.

30 | P a g e

Overarching agenda: Finding effective ways to increase the use of evidence through an action-learning oriented Overarching Learning Agenda process informed by accumulated learning/existing Increase the use of evidence knowledge instead of by conducting new research. In through action-learning oriented general, the use of knowledge might be directed to: 1) generate new knowledge, 2) for improving practice, and 3) process. for improving policy. The first priority is the use of • First priority: the use of knowledge for improving CTIP interventions (knowledge for practice). Acknowledging that some practices require knowledge for improving policy to be sustained, the second priority is promoting the practices in CTIP interventions use of knowledge for improving the CTIP policy cycle (knowledge for practice) process (knowledge to policy). By employing a process of • Second priority: the use of synthesis and contestation, we will also contribute to knowledge for improving the generating new knowledge. CTIP policy cycle process

(knowledge to policy) 1. Promoting evidence for improving CTIP practices (Knowledge for Practice-K4P). The agenda is to identify and promote K4P by focusing on the learning from accumulated knowledge/existing datasets especially learning from challenges/failure of past CTIP interventions. Illustrative activities for K4P are: a. Analysis of “TIP vulnerability and life before trafficking” using victims case files from USAID CTIP bilateral projects and Victims Case Management System managed by Liberty Asia (Research Review p.19); b. Exploring the datasets from open sources like World Bank labor market data and IOM datasets on migration and ILO statistics. c. Organizing “fail fast festivals”, call for quality stories about failures to be learned and stories of no change.

2. Increase the use of evidence in policy making process Knowledge to Policy (K2P) process. Evidence shows that which evidence ultimately gets promoted is a political choice (Parkhurst, 2017). Therefore, for better use of knowledge/evidence in policy, the learning agenda will revolve around the political economy of K2P processes because there are multiple actors operating at different levels of the systems and in different contexts; ‘actors must be the unit of analysis’ for understanding policy making and its implementation. Furthermore, because the best policy options can be derailed if they fail to take into account other knowledge and other politics and how these might affect the policy options, we may start with understanding and promoting better contestation of different types of knowledge namely: scientific knowledge (research), professional knowledge (experiential) and local knowledge (context) because it can help navigate treacherous political economy terrain. The learning agenda to improve K2P process then is to explore and promote the role of professional and local knowledge in the K2P process and makes the case that professional and local knowledge is a powerful tool in improving policies and their implementation, as it brings more actors fully into policy-making processes.

Why do we need to promote other types of knowledge in K2P process, not only scientific knowledge? Although it is often implicit, academic research is ‘loaded with cultural, racialized, gendered, political and class assumptions’ (Holmes and Crossley, 2004:208). Providing opportunities for other types of knowledge to inform policy is thus inherently democratizing and implies the participation of a broader group of legitimate actors to generate information. Because they often use different means of communication than academic research, other forms of knowledge can capture different meaning (Holmes and Crossley, 2004; Bryant, 2002). While this is generally an advantage, it also presents challenges in terms of communicating with policy makers. Officials may prefer modes of communication associated with academic research as legitimate for informing decisions.

31 | P a g e

Further, groups providing local or professional knowledge may have different standing in policy makers’ eyes, given their political identities and positions in the local social context, than the perspective on ‘objective’ information provided by researchers (Bryant, 2002). Preliminary findings from the NEXUS Research Review confirms this proposition, “Thus, as we move forward with the analysis for the research review, we will need to approach the question of knowledge gaps from these different (and sometimes) conflicting perspectives. This may mean considering what are knowledge gaps for, among others: Anti-trafficking practitioners, Service providers (government and NGO), Policy makers, Donors, Researchers, Criminal Justice actors, Private sector, The general public” (NEXUS, 2017, p.16). The need for using multiple forms of knowledge is also confirmed by literature in knowledge to policy, for example, Nugroho, Carden, and Antlov (2017) effective policy needs combination of three types of knowledge as described below:

3. The third agenda item is around measurement indicators and methodology for USAID CTIP interventions.

The above learning agenda was developed through the triangulation processes of different types of evidence from research (NEXUS Research Review); experiential evidence (from USAID bi-lateral CTIP program M&E data), and accumulated knowledge from the CTIP community as described below. Detailed preliminary learning agenda is available in Annex 1.

Identify knowledge gaps from research (NEXUS Research Review). Preliminary findings of the NEXUS Research Review confirms that there is a limited number of studies with primary datasets (either with victims or migrants). The majority of research is desk-based research, most commonly legal and policy reviews. Much research focuses on the period of trafficking itself (e.g. about working and living conditions while exploited, exposure to abuse and violence) but there are stages of the trafficking trajectory about which there is very little research – e.g. about pre-trafficking life and vulnerability, identification, reintegration, life after trafficking – which inhibits the ability to formulate evidence-based interventions and policy. Using the EBP framework, these findings represent only one dimension of EBP (evidence from research), so it is not enough to serve as ‘the’ foundation that defines an overall knowledge gap. USAID Asia CTIP experiential evidence generated through M&E data from Winrock/USAID CTIP Projects in Cambodia and Bangladesh will used to triangulate this finding, as described further in the following section, along with accumulated knowledge from previous CTIP interventions.

32 | P a g e

Evidence from M&E Data. Evidence from USAID CTIP projects in Cambodia and Bangladesh provide valuable knowledge about the knowledge gap that can be used to inform the learning agenda. For example, the gap of knowledge in life before trafficking, especially on different types and situations of vulnerability. Most USAID CTIP interventions in Asia are trying to address the root causes of trafficking by reducing vulnerability to trafficking. Activities range from awareness raising to livelihood initiatives, and they use different conceptual frameworks of vulnerability that complicate measuring the results. There is literature which recommends using a “vulnerability index” to measure how these factors increase or decrease the risks of trafficking, however, since using a vulnerability index to measure vulnerability to trafficking is almost based on untested assumptions about indicators of vulnerability, we propose the learning agenda be employed to measure vulnerability and vulnerable populations.

Accumulated Knowledge. ICAT11 identified key gaps in and problems with the evidence base in CTIP as follows:

1. Quality of evaluation of CTIP interventions

➢ Evaluations are limited in approach and quality, and with poor methodology ➢ There have been few impact evaluations; most evaluations focus on project process and outcomes and use largely qualitative methods. ➢ Effectiveness does not have evidence ➢ Good, effective, and successful practices lack clear evidence and criteria ➢ Evaluations did not have data about relevance and quality of services from people who had experienced trafficking

2. Quality of program design

➢ Lack of clear or articulated program logic, i.e. linking activities to outcomes or impacts ➢ Most programs did not collect baseline data needed to: (1) inform project design; (2) strengthen implementation in real time; (3) monitor progress; (4) assess outcomes and impacts; and (5) understand what might be needed to replicate or scale a promising or effective project or program. ➢ Disconnect between intended outcomes and project timeframes, highlighting a common need to explore the length of time required to realize and to document change. In particular, many responses to trafficking involve influencing social norms, something that may not always be achievable within a typical one-to-three year project cycle. There may also be natural delays between actions and intended results.

3. Evidence does not exist Many efforts have been based on unspecified, unexamined, or unsubstantiated assumptions and without testing assumptions by, for example, determining baseline knowledge before the intervention. Counter-trafficking project designs were commonly based on assumptions that were at best not supported by, and at worst contrary to, existing experiences and learning in the sector. For example, many awareness-raising programs appeared to be based on the assumption that people ‘leave’ when “they do not know what awaits them; if they know, they will not leave”. Such an assumption implies several additional assumptions about migrants – for example, that they: (1) lack information about migration and therefore do not understand the risks involved; (2) base migration decisions on available information; and (3) “real” information about migration risks will deter it. There is, however, little evidence that any of these assumptions are correct, applicable or accurately reflective of migration opportunities, risks or decision-making processes. This

11 Marshall, Phil (2016). Pivoting toward the Evidence: Building effective counter-trafficking responses using accumulated knowledge and a shared approach to monitoring, evaluation and learning. New York: United Nations. Online at: http://icat.network/sites/default/files/publications/documents/16-10259_Ebook.pdf (Retrieved: October 2, 2017)

33 | P a g e

underscored by the preliminary finding of the NEXUS Research Review indicating how little research is available about “life before trafficking.”

The logic around many programs to build capacity in the criminal justice system to apprehend, prosecute, and deter traffickers also appeared to contain assumptions that were not necessarily supported by existing knowledge. For example, in relation to investigative training, these include: (1) training participants have the prerequisite basic investigative skills on which to build counter- trafficking training; (2) systems and incentives are in place to encourage and allow investigators to change their behaviors and to operationalize the training; (3) rotation periods are long enough to allow investigators to apply the training (but not so long as to be vulnerable to corruption); and (4) no other factors are present that might negate improvements in investigation, such as poor judicial capacity or vested interests. These kinds of gaps frequently challenge capacity building activities across many sectors, and the anti-trafficking sector would benefit from recognizing and addressing them directly.

Study data suggests that efforts to improve the use of accumulated knowledge have been hampered by the lack of a general repository for collating and validating accumulated knowledge and presenting this knowledge in a form that is readily accessible and adaptable to future program design and implementation. For example, ICAT (2016) identifies thematic areas that are lacking and in need of evidence based on the analysis of 50 CTIP intervention evaluation reports as indicated in the box below. This review also indicated that the design of counter-trafficking responses often failed to reflect either the recommendations of previous evaluations or critical knowledge accumulated over time in the sector and beyond.

Thematic areas that are lacking and in need of evidence identified by ICAT:

➢ Various kinds of services to address male TIP victims. This can be learned from the victims themselves. Their experience can be used to strengthen the impact of CTIP responses and improve results.

➢ There have been more questions on the return on investment of training workshops, particularly one-off trainings for legal enforcement officers to improve effectiveness of law enforcement. Alternatives should be learned and tested.

➢ Consolidate existing evidence about migration risks and protection gaps to develop safe migration initiatives.

➢ Victim identification. Despite extensive efforts to set up identification and referral systems, actual identification and referral of cases of trafficking appears quite low compared to estimated numbers of victims.

➢ Declining assistance. Research in the sector has found that many victims decline assistance from counter-trafficking programs. Research identifies several reasons for declining assistance. Information learned from program implementation and research has suggested that many people who might fit the definition of having been trafficked are more interested in receiving payment for unpaid wages than in any direct assistance. This information can be used to refine and refocus counter-trafficking responses, for example, to shift resources from direct assistance to support restitution and legal remedies.

➢ Victim-centered approaches. Field-based experience has suggested the quality and suitability of support programs for trafficked persons would be increased through wider adoption of victim-centred approaches. Available evidence suggests this approach is also more effective in securing criminal justice outcomes as more coercive approaches can deter cooperation or trust in the process. Promote non-shelter services to TIP Victims.

34 | P a g e

Preliminary findings from NEXUS’s Research Review point to similar needs especially around services to address male victims and victim centered approaches.

3.2 Distribute and promote newly developed/existing evidence There are a significant and growing number of lessons, programmatic experience, promising practices, and formal and informal research in the CTIP sector that should be put to work in designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating new programs and activities. USAID Asia CTIP will facilitate learning platforms to promote newly developed and existing evidence by:

• Creating platforms for sharing evidence to assist practitioners in employing this knowledge in program design and implementation to ensure that they better reflect what has been learned and increase the potential of achieving planned results. This will be done through annual CTIP learning summits, the Freedom Collaborative platform, quarterly learning seminars with USAID bilateral CTIP programs and Associate Awards.

• Developing synthesized and distilled evidence drawn from multiple evaluations and relevant sources, rather than wide distribution of individual evaluations.

• Producing learning products such as action briefs, project grant research and JDR3 fellows and a web-based EBP repository.

3.3 Support the application of evidence USAID Asia CTIP will support the application of evidence by:

- Supporting the testing of effectiveness of promising practices in different settings. This kind of testing is critical to building the evidence base for understanding how and under conditions effective programs can be replicated and scaled up. This would be done through the Window of Opportunity grants

3.4 Overall management of EBPs An Evidence Based Practice Committee will be established to act as an engine to drive the process of promoting EBPs. The Committee will be comprised of at least three experts on CTIP, research and M&E with one Committee Facilitator. Roles and responsibilities of the Committee will be to: guide USAID Asia CTIP during the process for identifying EBP priorities and distribution; identify a learning agenda both in the short and long term; identify research topics and model testing and adaptations; and recommend grant recipients.

IV. Roadmap/Timeframe No. Action Date Note/Results A Consolidating EBP Building Blocks and Learning Agenda • NEXUS Research Review Year 1 Results: Learning • Synthesis from M&E data agenda and EBP • Winrock’s consultation and literature Roadmap review B Setting up management of EBPs B.1 • Set up EBP Committee Dec 2017-Jan 2018 EBP Committee and • Develop concept note and TOR on ToR EBP committee

35 | P a g e

No. Action Date Note/Results • Communication & confirmation of the committee B.2 EBPs Committee meeting to develop Plan Feb-Mar 2018 Final learning agenda of Action (including action to build & and workplan for develop evidence, and action to test & publication pilot evidences through research grants for policy & action and Window of Opportunity) • Governance • Community outreach strategy • Community engagement • Grants to improve evidences (JDR and Action) • WOO to pilot testing C Identifying EBPs • Learning Summit Apr-Jun 2018 EBPs Publication in • USAID CTIP Bilateral Projects & July 2018 and biannual Associate Awards publication in the rest • Learning events of the project • Conference, seminars • FM related events D Promoting the use of EBP • Promoting within USAID CTIP Aug 2018 onwards Continuous activities projects • USAID CTIP • Implementing partners • CTIP Community

36 | P a g e

Preliminary Learning Agenda Preliminary Learning Agenda – Knowledge Gaps

Topic Identified through (Research Review, M&E Data, PSLA, Outside Research, CSLA, Cooperative Agreement, and Consultation with Experts)

Overarching agenda: • Cooperative Agreement, Intermedia Results FM 1.1: Increase use of evidence • NEXUS Research Review, on increasing access to Finding effective ways to increase the existing research: “some “knowledge gaps” are use of evidence through an action- about access to research rather than lack of research itself (p.16). learning oriented process informed by • ICAT (2016, p.28), “The first set of steps are accumulated learning/existing knowledge aimed at ensuring that what has been learned instead of by conducting new from the multiple counter-trafficking and related research. efforts employed to date, as represented in the accumulated knowledge or experiential evidence of the sector, are better captured, compiled, and put to work to inform design, development and decision-making about counter-trafficking strategies, policies, interventions, and sectoral investments. • USAID Asia CTIP M&E Working Group Meeting 6-7 September 2017, responding to a question from Rebecca Surtees on how we should follow up the preliminary findings of Research Review on the lack of research evidence, conducting another research review or exploring the use of M&E data (existing knowledge) to fill the gaps. The Use of Evidence Agenda

Promoting evidence for improving • Cooperative Agreement (p.37) on Establishing the CTIP practices (Knowledge for USAID Asia CTIP evidence base and learning Practice-K4P) agenda,”… to identify promising practices and EBPs in CTIP interventions and research”. Identify and promote evidence-based • Research Review (p.19), “Some stages of the TIP practices (EBPs) by focusing on the trajectory are less studied…. Preliminary analysis learning from accumulated of these studies suggests that there are as number knowledge/existing datasets especially of stages of the trafficking trajectory about which learning from challenges/failure of past there is very little research. For example, table #12 CTIP interventions. below lists the number of studies about which there is no data for each stage of the trafficking trajectory. For example, 64% of research did not provide data about life before trafficking, a. Analysis of “TIP vulnerability and information which is vital in the design of life before trafficking” using victims prevention efforts as well as reintegration support. case files from USAID CTIP • USAID Asia CTIP Year 1 Workplan, Task 1.4, bilateral projects and Victims Case “methodology to aggregate and analyze data from Management System managed by existing datasets and new sources…..This may Liberty Asia; include sector-specific typologies, government data on migrant registration and deportation; labor

37 | P a g e

b. Exploring the datasets from open market dynamics; demographic and economic sources like World Bank labor development data from open source data (e.g., market data and IOM datasets on World Bank); reported labor violations from migration and ILO statistics. businesses in target sectors; data from migrants on c. Organizing “fail fast festivals”, call fraudulent recruitment and other concerns; and for quality stories about failures to anonymous aggregation from victim databases and social media. be learned and stories of no • ICAT (2016, p.16) on “Checklist of CTIP MEL Do’s change. and Don’ts” • Consultation with experts during the development of Learning Summit Agenda, including inputs from NEXUS Institute to the learning agenda of the summit.

Increase the use of evidence in • NEXUS Research Review (p.16), ““Thus, as we policy making process Knowledge move forward with the analysis for the research to Policy (K2P) process through review, we will need to approach the question of promoting the use other types of knowledge gaps from these different (and knowledge (including voice of TIP sometimes) conflicting perspectives. This may victims and the marginalized mean considering what are knowledge gaps for, groups) in K2P process. among others: Anti-trafficking practitioners, Service providers (government and NGO), Policy makers, Private sector, The general public” • Literature on K2P (ODI, 2011; Nugroho, Carden The followings are specific topics and Antlov, 2017), “best policy options can be identified through NEXUS Research derailed if they fail to take into account other review: knowledge and other politics and how these might affect the policy options…because it can help • Look into how CTIP community navigate treacherous political economy terrain.” utilizes research finding to influence policy makers – how effective?; more accessible EBPs for policy makers and CTIP practitioners (NEXUS p. 16) • Include stronger perspective of the migrants and TIP victims in the research, victim center based approach research for policy (NEXUS, p. 18) • Improve Gender dimension – better disaggregation in TIP and related research (p.13) • “Other voices” from traffickers (brokers, agent, pimps, etc.) (p.20) • Evidence from businesses (supply chain, labor/economic sectors functions (costing) (p.21) and PSLA • Content analysis of media report on TIP (p.10)

38 | P a g e

Measurement of CTIP Interventions

Consistent measurement of • Cooperative Agreement, Intermedia Results FM USAID CTIP interventions. 1.3: Development of standards, methods and processes for consistent monitoring and USAID Asia CTIP to lead the assessment of USAID CTIP interventions development of standards, methods, and • ICAT (2016, p.28), “formulation of measurement processes for consistent monitoring and and evaluation approaches to answering each of assessment of TIP and CTIP the core learning questions, as aligned with interventions. USAID Asia CTIP staff, implementation strategies, timelines and realities with technical support from NEXUS and on the ground and including logic models an advisory group, will develop a methodology (including a set of indicators) to collect baseline data, track, monitor, and measure the impact of USAID CTIP programs in Asia, building on Winrock’s experience implementing programs in the region, other initiatives as well as NEXUS’s work with the USG evaluating CTIP interventions.

39 | P a g e

Visual of EBP Work

Inputs Process Outputs Communicating outputs Usage of EBPs

• Nexus Evidence Based Promising Outreach Engagement research Practice Committee EBPs review (EBPs Committee) • M&E data (Biannual • Distributing EBPs • Adaptation New • Promoting EBPs • New Release i.e. • Testing EBPs As an engine to drive (Learning summit, research through • Scaling up the process: newsletter, Freedom • Existing EBPs • Contextualise comprising of 3 experts platform) Collaborative, (Research/ + technical & admin Regular learning facilitator seminar / as Winrock knowledge Opportunities) community(quarterl y) Roadmap of EBPs • Produce learning products such as • Learning agenda – action brief, web- short (6 months) & based EBPs long term (more than repository. 1 year) • Mechanism to generate promising EBPs (bi-annual) • Manage the process Community Facilitator

40 | P a g e

FM 1 Strategy and Action Points

How do we strengthen learning around Trafficking In Persons

Strengthen knowledge-to- Improve measurement of Strengthen capacity of local practice cycle USAID CTIP interventions researchers in research and the use of research

• Research review to inform the • Develop a methodology and knowledge gap and prioritized regional monitoring and • Mapping of institutions learning agenda (by NEXUS) evaluation indicators to be conducting research/evaluation • Identifying and dissemination reported on by USAID CTIP on TIP-related issues (GAATW) of evidence-based practices programs in Asia (Winrock) • A series of capacity development (EBPs), e.g. EBPs in using • Facilitating an M&E Working supports to local institutions, incl. technology in reaching Group to foster the research grant and technical vulnerable populations, EBPs production and use of assistance in research, ethical in rapid response for migrant learning on measurement of issues in TIP research, and crisis, etc. (Winrock) CTIP interventions (Winrock communicating research for • Facilitate learning and NEXUS) influencing policy (GAATW and JDR3-Winrock) platform/ecosystem e.g. annual CTIP learning summit, • Linking the local researchers with Freedom Collaborative (by USAID Asia CTIP Learning Winrock) Community (GAATW and JDR3- Winrock).

How information/learning/evidence-based practices is evaluated and counterproductive

information is rejected. How is new “knowledge/learning/EBPs” created from competing information sources and incorporated with useful existing knowledge? Which processes create novelty, which smother innovation, which foster it?

41 | P a g e

ANNEX II: Proposed 10 Key Outcome Indicator for Associates Awards (USAID Asia CTIP-AA Indicators)

IR 1: Risk of trafficking in persons reduced among vulnerable IR 2: Trafficked persons have increased access to support IR 3: Trafficked persons have increased populations access to justice

IR1.1 Potential IR1.2 Prospective IR1. The capacity of IR2.1 Improved IR2.2 Improved IR2.3 Improved IR3.1 Improved IR3.2 Increased migrants decided not migrants taking steps the government to identification of availability and quality utilization of support quality of TIP effective remedies to migrate to protect themselves effectively formulate trafficked persons of services provided to services for criminal justice for trafficked and implement policies activity (arrests/ persons IR1.1.1 Emigration rate from exploitation IR2.1.1 Number of trafficked persons trafficked persons on safe migration prosecutions/and in USAID CTIP target IR1.2.1 Percentage of trafficked persons IR2.2.1: # USG supported IR2.3.1 Number of IR3.2.1 # of trafficked convictions) areas. prospective migrants IR1.3.1 Procedures: identified through CTIP service points trafficked persons who persons accessing remedies with USG taking minimum steps perceptions on the formal and informal providing services for received services with IR3.1.1 # of criminal assistance through for safe migration (to be ability of the mechanisms. Ref: trafficking survivors. USG supports. Ref: justice activity court and non-court defined) Ref: 1.5.3-13 government in Ref: 1.5.3-22 1.5.3-18 and DR.6.3-1 (arrests/prosecution/co implementing policies nvictions) have met system. Reducing IR2.2.2 # of USG and regulations that the quality standards Socioeconomic push supported CTIP service Ref: 1.5.3-18 Reducing Individual permit and promote Reducing legal and set by the USG project providers have met the factors vulnerabilities safe migration. procedural barriers Outcome of reduced minimum standards of barriers and increased Outcome of reduced IR1.3.2 Government care and services for Outputs (using OAM- Output: availability and quality barriers and increased Effectiveness: Output: trafficked persons. Ref: Increase capacity in opportunity, ability and 1.2.1.1 # of target capacity of criminal perceptions on the 2.1.1.1# of officials/CSO 1.5.3-22 and 23 of services prosecution populations improved justice actors motivation)-approach: quality of public staff trained or assisted awareness of safe 1.1.1.1 # of socio- services on safe in identification of TIP migration information economic opportunities migration. Reducing Output: Output: 2.1.1.2# of stakeholder provided through USG 1.2.1.2 # of safe infrastructural barriers 2.3.1.1# of TIP survivors Output: 3.2.1.1# # of legal

assistance migration channel coordination initiatives assisted by USG 3.1.1.1 # of criminal assistance organizations opportunities provided Reducing governance- to strengthen TIP justice officials trained 1.1.1.2 # of target programs assisted by USG through USG identification Output: or assisted to prosecute populations are able to related risks programs assistance mechanism 2.2.1.1# of new service 2.3.1.2 Percentage of TIP cases. Ref: 1.5.3- access the socio- points or providers assisted TIP survivors 17 3.2.1.2 # of trafficked economic opportunities 1.2.1.3 # of target 2.1.1.3# of policies on Output: established reported their persons who have populations are able to TIP identification 3.1.1.2 # of 1.1.1.3 # of target IR1.3.1 Government: # satisfaction with the submitted claims for access the safe improved/strengthened 2.2.1.2 #of new stakeholders’ populations are of policies on safe services remedies with USG migration opportunities with USG assistance types/scope of services coordination initiatives motivated to take migration influenced assistance with USG assistance. for TIP survivors 2.3.1.3# of TIP survivors in prosecution of TIP alternative activities to 1.2.1.4 # of target 3.2.1.3 Qualitative Ref: 1.5.3-19 developed receiving services cases migrate populations are according to developed analysis to assess if motivated to take steps 2.2.2.1# of service IR1.3.2 # of officials standard for qualitative there is an for safe migration trained or assisted to providers complying with case management improvement in improve safe standard case statutory, policies, or management services migration policies or procedures for effective practices remedies

42 | P a g e

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. IR 1.1.1

Regional Leader Project Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected

IR 1: Risk of trafficking in persons reduced among vulnerable populations

Sub-IR1.1: Potential migrants have alternatives to migration that reduce the desire to migrate

Linkage(s) to foreign assistance framework: NA Type: Custom/outcome

Activity Name: Strengthening availability and equitable access to social and economic opportunities (e.g educational and vocational opportunities, enhancing job/economic/business opportunities) for potential migrants

Note: Taking a structuralist view, people’s vulnerability is partially the product of social inequalities—vulnerability is a consequence, not a given situation (Cutter et al., 2003) because people with less access to social services (and justice) are relatively more vulnerable than those have better access. With this position, governments therefore have a responsibility to respond affirmatively to that vulnerability by ensuring that all people have equal access to the societal institutions that distribute resources (Fineman, 2008 cited in Kohn, 2014). In CTIP context, instead of asking the vulnerable populations to address the root of TIP causes, the program will use a rights-based approach, strengthening the people to claim their rights or assisting the government to improve their capability to in meeting their people’s rights through social welfare policies. This is the foundation of community resiliency. For more discussion on social vulnerability and the role of government, see Kohn, Nina A. (2014) "Vulnerability Theory and the Role of Government," Yale Journal of Law & Feminism: Vol. 26: Iss. 1, Article 2.

Number/Name of Performance Indicator: IR1.1.1 Emigration rate in target areas

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Rationale and Definition:

While the underlying principle of CTIP prevention is safer migration instead of less migration, from TIP risk-reduction perspective, the fact that the risk of human trafficking to be highest in areas with high rates of emigration, emigration rate should be taken into account in the calculation of risk of TIP. As Omar Mahmoud and Trebesch, 2010 explained (p.2), two channels may explain why individual trafficking risks increase with regional emigration rates:

1. The first channel relates to the demand side of the human trafficking market (criminal agents recruiting for employers abroad). We argue that large-scale emigration can lower recruitment costs, so that high-migration regions become particularly attractive for traffickers and related criminals. One reason is that it is much easier to find potential victims, simply because so many people are departing from there. But traffickers may also benefit from agglomeration forces in emigration areas, as large migrant flows attract other middlemen offering services such as work procurement, false documents or smuggling across borders. The agglomeration of such shadow migration industries in emigration areas offers ample opportunities to collaborate with other agents or free-ride on their reputation (Tamura 2007). 2. The second channel is mainly based on negative self-selection into migration and therefore linked to the supply side of the human trafficking market (vulnerable individuals willing to work abroad). We predict that migrants departing from high migration areas will share characteristics that make them more vulnerable to trafficking. High-emigration areas are often disadvantaged in the first place, so that migrants from there may be more willing to take risks, and possibly even consent to hazardous working conditions abroad. It has also been shown that large-scale emigration can affect the degree of negative self-selection. Larger migrant networks

43 | P a g e

lower the costs of migration, thus fostering the migration of poorer, less educated workers. These negatively selected latecomers in the migration wave might be more vulnerable to traffickers’ deception schemes. In sum, we predict trafficking risks to be higher in high-migration areas (i) because traffickers benefit from lower recruitment costs and free-riding opportunities there and/or (ii) because those departing from high-migration areas can be more easily deceived.

For USAID CTIP interventions, emigration rate is defined as the number of emigrants departing an area of origin per 1,000 population in that area of origin in a given year. This indicator measures the desired changes of CTIP prevention interventions i.e. reduction in the desire to migrate among potential migrants through strengthening the availability and equitable access to social and economic opportunities. From TIP risk-reduction perspective and following the migrant’s journey, the relevant desired outcomes of providing alternatives to migration CTIP prevention at this stage is to reduce the desire to migrate by providing alternatives to migration, not improved socio-economic status like income, employment etc. The indicator of reduction in desire to migrate is emigration rate. The thinking behind this objective is that the risk of human trafficking to be highest in areas with high rates of emigration. Simply put, “traffickers fish in the stream of migration” (Coomaraswamy 2001, p. 3 in Omar Mahmoud and Trebesch, 2010, p.2),

Disaggregated by: province, country

Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach: In source countries, USAID CTIP Project’s objective to reducing vulnerability to trafficking in general include expanding economic, vocational, educational, and other livelihood opportunities for target groups that are considered at greater risk to human trafficking. This also include strengthening or making available other social services in communities, particularly for marginalized and discriminated groups, the absence of which may contribute to vulnerability to traffickers.

These various activities in reducing vulnerability have implications on different measurement indicators and methodology. While the reasons are valid from project level perspective, USAID/RDMA requires a common indicator to measure changes in determinant variables of vulnerability to trafficking from regional perspective. Aggregation of project’s data is problematic because different measurement unit, data sources etc. This indicator, first, is not an effort to actually gather data on the effectiveness of the socio-economic opportunities provided by the program, but rather to see the overall impact to the high-level risk factor and to suggest specific indicators. While other researchers, including a team at the UNODC and European Commission, provide some proof of concept in a specific case; our effort is more proof of theory and practicality with less effort in data collection. Second, while the indicators are meant to apply at multiple levels, a particular constraint here was to make sure they were applicable across national boundaries. Finally, other researchers have rightly written long article on the meaning of vulnerability (and other terms that parallel what we mean by vulnerable populations to TIP); given the scale of this initial research project, our goal is to instead offer a memo which is short but, we hope, will trigger debates that generate learnings for consistent measurement of USAID CTIP interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCE

Who will lead data collection: USAID Asia CTIP with support from Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects

Data Source: Government publications, World Bank Open Data

Method of Data Acquisition: Direct access to data source platform

44 | P a g e

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annual

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Asia CTIP: M&E Advisor

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID Asia CTIP: MEL Specialist

Location of Data Storage (optional): DevResults

COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

Whether program aimed at providing alternatives to migration are actually effective in preventing trafficking remains a matter of some debates. Among the problems identified are that the alternatives are often not realistic, nor attractive compared to the perceived opportunities/benefits provided by migration. However, in general, study on the economics of TIP showing that large-scale emigration is associated with higher risk of TIP because large-scale emigration can lower recruitment costs, so that high-migration regions become particularly attractive for traffickers and related criminals. One reason is that it is much easier to find potential victims, simply because so many people are departing from there. But traffickers may also benefit from agglomeration forces in emigration areas, as large migrant flows attract other middlemen offering services such as work procurement, false documents or smuggling across borders. The agglomeration of such shadow migration industries in emigration areas offers ample opportunities to collaborate with other agents or free-ride on their reputation (Tamura 2007, in Omar Mahmoud and Trebesch, 2010, p.2).

All indicators are imperfect. Almost by definition, indicators are simply indirect markers of complex phenomenon. But indicators are also limited by the availability of data and data collection processes. For example, it would be ideal to have an indicator at household level over a life-time as that would allow us to truly assess the extent to which economic factors can reduce or increase the desire to migrate, a dimension clearly as important as any key assumption of root causes of TIP. Unfortunately, data is only available in a few countries and requires highly developed longitudinal data systems. Keeping these considerations in mind, the goal is to find indicators for which data is actually available with substantial international coverage, and where the data is gathered by reliable government, private sector, or non-profit organizations.

Although the primary focus of our recommendations is on national level indicators, we will try to select indicators that would be relevant across multiple contexts (e.g., source and destination countries), scales (e.g., national and city), and regions (e.g., urban and rural). In some cases, we are aware that some data sources allow for sub-national analysis. In other cases, data is not currently available beyond a few countries but could be expanded overtime. In using these indicators to measure sub-national vulnerabilities, it is important to be aware of potential synergies or contradictions. Relatively poor and relatively rich cities, for example, could exist in the same country and aggregate measures could result in ranking countries as equitable, even though at the city-level there are stark differences in measures of persistent inequalities. Thus, considering sub-national analysis in the overall picture proves incredibly important, and where possible, we include both relative and absolute indicators to help account for this dynamic.

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: September 20, 2017.

45 | P a g e

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. IR 1.2

Regional Leader Project Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected

IR 1: Risk of trafficking in persons reduced among vulnerable populations

Sub-IR1.2 Prospective migrants taking steps to protect themselves from exploitation

Linkage(s) to foreign assistance framework: Ref: 1.5.3-13. Indicator Type: Custom/outcome

Activity Name: Raising awareness and information services on safe migration

Number/Name of Performance Indicator: IR1.2.1 Percentage of surveyed prospective migrants taking minimum steps for safe migration

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Rationale and Definition:

Vulnerability may also be caused by lack of information about safe migration. USAID CTIP interventions in some countries are designed based on this assumption, that increase awareness of risks, will lead to safer behavior in migration. The projects support activities to empowering individuals with information about safe migration and the dangers of trafficking through raising the awareness of potential migrants. Activities, in various dosage, combine support to governments, communities, civil society, media and others to provide information as well as access to assistance and support networks. Information channels may vary, from peer group, outreach, community-based organization, government, social media and trusted local networks and brokers. Providing access to assistance and support networks and working with stakeholders around vulnerable populations are key strategy to complement the first assumption since behavioral theory and evidence highlights that a person’s knowledge and understanding about TIP risk is not enough to lead them to take action to avoid that risk (Marshall, 2011, p.6).

With this regard, the intended behavior change is action by vulnerable populations to reduce vulnerable migration instead of changing people’s desire from migrating to not migrating. Action to reduce vulnerable migration is any action taken to protect themselves in the migration process. These might include using protected legal channels or becoming better informed about their intended destination and channels to access assistance in case of trouble, etc. For measurement purposes, we refer minimum action to reduce vulnerable migration to an example provided by Phill Marshall (Marshall, 2011 p.14) as follow:

1. Take a copy of the personal documentation of their recruiter and leave with a family member, village chief or other trusted source; 2. Leave details with family member, village chief or other trusted source as to where they are going and who with; 3. Memorize a phone number they can call for assistance in the destination country; and 4. Talk to three other returned migrants for advice about protecting themselves during migration and at destination.

46 | P a g e

For this measurement, prospective migrant is defined as respondent who say they would like to migrate to another country (exclude in-country migration/urbanization) if the opportunity arose (Esipova, Ray, and Srinivasan, 2010).

Disaggregated by: Sex, country, age groups race/ethnic groups

Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach:

USAID CTIP interventions in awareness raising have been targeting various groups and various behavioral goals. From regional indicator perspective, it needs to agree on common target group and behavioral goal for consistent measurement. This indicator proposes specific target group i.e. prospective migrants and specific behavioral goals (four goals as described above). Specific target group i.e. prospective migrant is chosen because definition and population universe of vulnerable or at-risk population vary across country.

DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCE

Who will lead data collection: USAID Asia CTIP with support from Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects

Data Source: Survey by Implementing Partner Organizations

Method of Data Acquisition: Survey

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annual

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Asia CTIP: M&E Advisor

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID Asia CTIP: MEL Specialist

Location of Data Storage (optional): DevResults

COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

Reducing vulnerable migration is often not solely or even primarily dependent on migrant individual action. Other factors significantly affect the level of migration risks, for example, it may also be the case that potential migrants understand the risks and willing to seek assistance but are not able to access ways of reducing those risks because these may be restrictive in terms of costs, time, or criteria in terms of age or qualifications. Even for those who are reluctant to migrate, conditions at home may force some to undertake the associated risks due to their family’s economic situation or through peer pressure. So, in evaluating the impact of awareness raising and information services in reducing risky migration, we need to proportionally analyze the contribution of individual actions, collective actions, and structural risks.

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: September 20, 2017.

47 | P a g e

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. IR 1.3.1 and IR 1.3.1

Regional Leader Project Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected

IR 1: Risk of trafficking in persons reduced among vulnerable populations

Sub-IR1.3 The government effectively formulates and enforces rules and deliver services related to safe migration

Linkage(s) to foreign assistance framework: Ref: 1.5.3-19 Indicator Type: Custom/outcome

Activity Name: To increase governance in safe migration through capacity development, technical assistance to government including policy advocacy and strengthening regulatory framework.

Number/Name of Performance Indicator: IR 1.3.1 Perceptions of the ability of the government in implementing policies and regulations that permit and promote safe migration and IR1.3.2 Government Effectiveness: perceptions of the quality of public services on safe migration. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Rationale and Definition:

One of essential element of risk of trafficking as described in indicator IR 1.1.1 above is governmental/structural risk in the migration process. That is why most of all USAID CTIP interventions are also working with the government to increase governance toward safe migration process. This indicator measures the outcome of these interventions on strengthening governance in migration process. For this indicator, we refer to Fukuyama’s definition of governance (2013, p.3) i.e. government's ability to make and enforce rules, and to deliver services, regardless of whether that government is democratic or not.

Following this definition, the objects of measurement would be: 1) the migration procedures (rules and the enforcement), and government effectiveness seen from public’s satisfaction on the service delivered by the government. Since the appropriate methodology for assessing the quality or rules/policies requires a comprehensive review of the overall regulatory system, for the regional indicator, the measurement will be focused on public’s perception on the ability of government in implementing policies and regulations that permit and promote safe migration (IR 1.3.1) and public’s satisfaction on the service delivered by the government (IR 1.3.2)

Disaggregated by: Gender and respondent’s association (migrant, CSO, general public, private sector)

Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach:

USAID Asia CTIP interventions in supporting policy reform have been targeting various policy types at different levels with different policy influence goals. Some target change in policy content, some targeting policy implementation, In order to provide an overview at regional level about the impact of USAID CTIP intervention on CTIP policies in the region, we need to agree on the framework to measure it. Using policy influence framework and disaggregated them into policy process is a promising approach in measuring the impact of USAID CTIP intervention in policy advocacy.

48 | P a g e

DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCE

Who will lead data collection: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects with support from USAID Asia CTIP

Data Source: Implementing Partner Organizations

Method of Data Acquisition: Review of partner report

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Semi-annual

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Asia CTIP: M&E Advisor

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID Asia CTIP: MEL Specialist

Location of Data Storage (optional): DevResults

COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

Since state capacity varies substantially across functions, levels of government, and regions, unit analysis may not able to represent all major government agencies.

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: September 20, 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. IR 2.1.1

Regional Leader Project Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected

IR 2: Trafficked persons have increased access to support

IR2.1 Improved identification of trafficked persons

Linkage(s) to foreign assistance framework: PS.5.1.3-18 Indicator Type: Custom/outcome

Activity Name: Strengthening identification of trafficked person system

Number/Name of Performance Indicator: IR2.1.1 # Increased percentage of trafficked persons identified through formal and informal mechanisms.

49 | P a g e

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Rationale and Definition:

The provision of protection and support for trafficked persons is directly tied to victim identification. Those who are not detected or identified correctly or in a timely manner will be effectively prevented from accessing protection and assistance - even if the law grants them specific rights. In source, transit and destination countries, activities will strengthen the capacity of relevant officials (formal mechanism) and non-state personnel (informal mechanism) likely to encounter and identify possible victims of trafficking in persons. This indicator is to measure USAID CTIP interventions in supporting identification of TIP system through both mechanisms. While the indications of improvement in the identification systems such as number of trafficked persons identified, improved regulations and procedures on TIP identification, bilateral agreement, etc. are being documented by individual project; the challenge is to assess the significance of those progress at population level. This indicator is developed as an attempt to address this challenge. The numerator (number of identified trafficked persons) will be collected from USAID CTIP Project, however, the difficult one is to determine the denominator. For this indicator, the denominator would be total victims identified in a country in a given year.

Disaggregated by: Sex, age groups, country, province (race/ethnic)

Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach:

So far, to measure the performance of victim identification, we collect data on number of trafficked persons identified. At regional level, we will still need to collect on the numbers, but in addition to this, we need to establish comparison figures to assess their significance.

DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCE

Who will lead data collection: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects with support from USAID Asia CTIP

Data Source: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects M&E data and estimation

Method of Data Acquisition: USAID CTIP Project M&E data

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Asia CTIP: M&E Advisor

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID Asia CTIP: MEL Specialist

Location of Data Storage (optional): DevResults

COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

50 | P a g e

Using number of identified victims as a proxy of the magnitude of TIP is debatable as it does not help us to answer a question on how significant is our achievement. For example, if we managed to identify 60 this year, which is 25% increase compared with last year achievement, is this achievement is significant? How about if the achievement were 55, does it mean worst or in-difference? We need to establish a figure to assess the relative proportion of our numbers.

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: September 20, 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. IR 2.2.1

Regional Leader Project Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected

IR 2: Trafficked persons have increased access to support

IR2.2 Improved availability and quality of services provided to trafficked persons

Linkage(s) to foreign assistance framework: Ref: 1.5.3-22 Indicator Type: Custom/outcome

Activity Name: Support efforts by government and civil society organizations to ensure availability and quality of services to trafficked persons

Number/Name of Performance Indicator: # USG supported CTIP service points providing services for trafficking survivors.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Rationale and Definition:

In addition to quality aspect, another essential pre-condition for an increased coverage and quality of protection services for trafficked persons is availability of the services, both in terms of quantity and scope of the services. This indicator measures the USAID CTIP project’s supports to the efforts by government and civil society organizations to ensure access to protection services by trafficked persons. Number of services will be measured by counting the number of service points and the scope of services is measured through quantifying the types of service available to trafficked persons.

Disaggregated by: Location, type of services

Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach:

This is process indicator to provide an overview how USAID CTIP projects have increased the availability of services to trafficked persons, both in terms of access and scope of services.

51 | P a g e

DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCE

Who will lead data collection: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects with support from USAID Asia CTIP

Data Source: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects M&E data and estimation

Method of Data Acquisition: USAID CTIP Project M&E data

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Asia CTIP: M&E Advisor

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID Asia CTIP: MEL Specialist

Location of Data Storage (optional): DevResults

COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

This indicator does not measure the utilization of the services as it requires analysis of the quality and barriers to access the service.

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: August 31, 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. IR 2.2.2

Regional Leader Project Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected

IR 2: Trafficked persons have increased access to support

IR2.2 Improved availability and quality of services provided to trafficked persons

Linkage(s) to foreign assistance framework: Ref: 1.5.3-22 and 23 Indicator Type: Custom/outcome

Activity Name: Support efforts by government and civil society organizations to ensure availability and quality of services to trafficked persons

Number/Name of Performance Indicator: IR2.2.2 Percentage of USG supported CTIP service providers have met the national minimum standards of care and services for trafficked persons.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

52 | P a g e

Rationale and Definition:

In addition to availability and access to the service, another essential pre-condition for an increased utilization of protection services for trafficked persons is quality of the services This indicator measures the USAID CTIP project’s supports to the efforts by government and civil society organizations to increase the quality of protection services to trafficked persons. Quality will be measured by their fulfilment with the national/agreed standards.

Disaggregated by: Location

Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach:

This is process indicator to provide an overview of how USAID CTIP projects have increased the quality of services to trafficked persons. Together with indicator 2.2.1, we will be able to provide an overview of how USAID CTIP projects have increased the availability and quality of services for the trafficked persons.

DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCE

Who will lead data collection: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects with support from USAID Asia CTIP

Data Source: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects M&E data and estimation

Method of Data Acquisition: USAID CTIP Project M&E data

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Asia CTIP: M&E Advisor

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID Asia CTIP: MEL Specialist

Location of Data Storage (optional): DevResults

COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

National standards on quality may be different.

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: August 31, 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. IR 2.3.1

53 | P a g e

Regional Leader Project Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected

IR 2: Trafficked persons have increased access to support

IR2.3 Improved utilization of support services for trafficked persons

Linkage(s) to foreign assistance framework: Ref: 1.5.3-18 and DR.6.3-1 Indicator Type: Standard/outcome

Activity Name: Support efforts by government and civil society organizations to ensure utilization of quality of services to trafficked persons

Number/Name of Performance Indicator: IR2.3.1 Number of trafficked persons who received services with USG supports.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Rationale and Definition:

The ultimate goal of increased availability and quality of services to trafficked persons in the utilization of the services by the targeted beneficiaries. Number of eligible client (trafficked persons) utilizing the services is defined by the service provider and it will be disaggregated by type of services. Utilizing is defined when the eligible clients utilized at least one of the services provided by the service provider that receives direct supports (financial and or technical supports) from USG-funded project

Disaggregated by: Sex, age groups, ethnic/race, nationality, location

Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach:

This is process indicator will provide an overview of the “service delivery” dimensions of USAID CTIP Projects, direct influence to the trafficked persons

DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCE

Who will lead data collection: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects with support from USAID Asia CTIP

Data Source: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects M&E data and estimation

Method of Data Acquisition: USAID CTIP Project M&E data

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Asia CTIP: M&E Advisor

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID Asia CTIP: MEL Specialist

54 | P a g e

Location of Data Storage (optional): DevResults

COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

Utilization of services is also influenced by other factors than availability and quality of services. Barriers such as cultural, political and legal barriers may influence the performance of this indicators.

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: August 31, 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. IR 3.1.1

Regional Leader Project Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected

IR 3: Trafficked persons have increased access to justice

IR3.1 Improved quality of TIP criminal justice activity (arrests/ prosecutions/and convictions)

Linkage(s) to foreign assistance framework: Ref: PS 5.1 #1.5.3-19 Indicator Type: Standard/outcome

Activity Name: Improve trafficked persons’ access to justice, prioritizing support for those found to be most effective

Number/Name of Performance Indicator: IR3.1.1 Number of criminal justice activity (arrests/prosecution/convictions) have met the quality standards set by the USG project

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Rationale and Definition:

Many of USAID CTIP projects’ activities aim to strengthen the capacity of criminal justice actors to prosecute trafficking in persons cases, including investigate, prosecute and punish corrupt public officials who engage in or facilitate trafficking in persons and promote a zero-tolerance policy against those corrupt officials. This indicator measures the intermediate outcome of these capacity building inputs in the form of quality of criminal justice activity (arrests/prosecution/convictions). While outputs at individual level such increased knowledge and skills will be measured by implementing partner, this indicator will focus on the next level of changes, at institutional level.

55 | P a g e

Focus of the assessment is not in the internal dimension of organizational capacity, instead, we will focus on external capacity, in providing services. Proxy of this performance is the quality of criminal justice activity or from public administration perspective called as “duties”. This is a qualitative indicator and assessment process where the standard is country specific and the assessment will be done by experts.

Disaggregated by: Types of justice activity, country

Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach:

This indicator will provide an overview of USAID CTIP’s influence to the quality of justice activity, instead of number of cases.

DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCE

Who will lead data collection: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects with support from USAID Asia CTIP

Data Source: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects M&E data and estimation

Method of Data Acquisition: USAID CTIP Project M&E data

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Asia CTIP: M&E Advisor

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID Asia CTIP: MEL Specialist

Location of Data Storage (optional): DevResults

COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

Qualitative assessment will vary among country, but this method will provide more useful information rather than number of legal cases.

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: September 20, 2017.

Activity Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – Indicator No. IR 3.2.1

Regional Leader Project Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected

IR 3: Trafficked persons have increased access to justice

56 | P a g e

IR3.2 Increased effective remedies for trafficked persons

Linkage(s) to foreign assistance framework: Ref: Ref: PS 5.1 #1.5.3-18 Indicator Type: Standard/outcome

Activity Name: Improve trafficked persons’ access to justice, prioritizing support for those found to be most effective.

Number/Name of Performance Indicator: IR3.2.1 Number of trafficked persons accessing remedies with USG assistance through court and non-court system.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

Rationale and Definition:

This indicator measures the outcome of USAID CTIP interventions in strengthening access to justice for trafficked persons both through court or non-court system. Documenting access to justice in non-court system is important because significant proportion of injustices faced by trafficked persons involve civil rather than criminal matters, and the fact that people typically seek to solve their justice problems without relying on formal justice systems. Therefore the measurements of justice must go beyond criminal justice. While improvement at project level (number of trafficked persons accessing remedies with USG assistance) is available at project level, the significance of this achievement will be able to be measured when we know the estimated population of identified trafficked persons.

Disaggregated by: Sex, demographic categories and country

Rationale or Management Utility, USAID Integration Approach:

This indicator will provide an overview of the significance of our assistance to trafficked persons at population level, an indication of effectiveness of USAID CTIP interventions in assisting trafficked person.

DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCE

Who will lead data collection: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects with support from USAID Asia CTIP

Data Source: Associate Awards and Bilateral Projects M&E data and estimation

Method of Data Acquisition: USAID CTIP Project M&E data

Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual

Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Asia CTIP: M&E Advisor

Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID Asia CTIP: MEL Specialist

57 | P a g e

Location of Data Storage (optional): DevResults

COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

Number of trafficked persons accessing justice or remedies does not necessarily reflects the improvement in justice/remedies system (justice sector reform). Increase or decrease in terms of quantity of trafficked person accessed remedies might be just a temporary dynamic that shaped by various factors. A rigorous assessment such as regulatory impact analysis is needed to assess the systemic change.

Many economic, structural, and institutional factors hinder access to justice, including the complexity and cost of legal processes, time, and geographical and physical constraints. Importantly, many people — especially those in vulnerable and marginalized groups — neither recognize their problems as legal ones, nor identify the potential legal remedies for those problems. Cost, including opportunity cost, and trust in the justice system are also important factors in determining whether or not people seek legal assistance, or take action at all, to resolve their legal problems.

THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: September 20, 2017.

58 | P a g e

ANNEX III Methodology for Measuring Impact of USAID CTIP Interventions Discussion Note prepared by USAID Asia CTIP, September 2017

Section I. What is the problem? Some studies have identified methodological challenges in measurement of the effectiveness/impact of counter trafficking in persons (CTIP) interventions (Harkins, 2017; ICAT, 2016; Dragiewicz, 2015). One of the contributing factors to these measurement challenges is a belief that the ultimate desired change of CTIP interventions is reduction of incidence or prevalence of trafficking in persons (TIP). Driven by this belief—that impact measurement is about reduction of TIP prevalence--, years and million dollars have been spent to generate various estimation techniques12 which are costly, difficult to conduct regularly, and often do not provide enough detail to develop targeted sectoral interventions or track progress over time. At the same time, there is a large body of research and data available on issues closely related to TIP that has not been properly utilized as an evidence base for CTIP interventions.

Focusing the measurement on TIP incidence and prevalence--due to its own complexities13-- is technically problematic as the sample frames are difficult to generate and politically challenging due to prolonging political- economy contestation behind different estimation methods (Gallagher, 2016; Weitzer, 2014) and contestation about who decides the success of CTIP interventions (Gallagher and Surtees, 2012). In addition, TIP-focused surveillance systems often neglect the many contextual factors that contribute to --what Mike Dottridge (2015) called as “the creation of ‘trafficking” and some may lead to wrong policies (Brunner, 2015). In the other side, in the absence of reliable TIP estimates data, some CTIP interventions due to logistical challenges and evaluability reasons, tend to apply an analytical evaluation rather than a precise measure of program impact. The findings of CTIP evaluation generated from analytical evaluation methodologies are lack of compelling power due lack of precise measure. The common reason why analytical evaluation methodology is chosen in CTIP evaluation is partly because some CTIP interventions have been structured in a way that makes it difficult to measure their impact (USAID, 2012, p.2) and due to a disconnect in the relationship between activities and intended outcomes and a reliance on unarticulated assumption or hypotheses that are not supported by available data (ICAT, 2016, p.vi) and even a reluctance to apply rigorous methods (Harkins, 2017).

These challenges, along with methodological and ethical concerns in research on human trafficking (Surtees and Craggs, 2010, p.28 and Siegel, et al, 2016), as well as political dynamics within CTIP field (Yea, 2017), have made some people believe that complexity of TIP is extremely dangerous so that any attempts to measure the impact of CTIP intervention will be always problematic, both technically and politically. Prolonged debates around the efficacy of these two methodological tendencies have been in part, hindering the development of measurement “discipline” in CTIP field. These highlighted the need to invest in future methodological advances, “are there any methodologies we can use to get around that problem?”.

Section II. What is the idea? Although the complexity of TIP measurement is unique in its own technical area, we can draw learnings from other development fields on how they deal with similar measurement challenges, for example to shifting the evidence and measurement thinking to focus more on prevention and monitoring (Panos London, 2009). Cathy Zimmerman of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in a discussion in the Freedom from

12 A good summary of the debates on global estimates see for example the discussion on the methodologies used by U.S. government and ILO (Kutnick, Belser and Danailva-Trainor-ILO, 2007); multi-mode strategy (van Dijk, 2015); and recent methodology used by ILO and Walk Free Foundation (2017) to estimate global modern slavery. 13 Such as definitions that are often contradictory, ill stated, interpreted in multiple ways or simply missing; TIP as hidden population, concerns with the ethicalness of observing the population; and there is a lack of understanding concerning methodological and statistical principles. See Gould (2010) for a good summary of the debate about the complexities of estimation methods.

59 | P a g e

Slavery Forum in October 2016, argued that focusing the measurement on prevention is promising because prevention framework –that works through the logic of “risk factors” will able to articulate the determinant factors in change pathways. By having clarity on how a change happens, the anti-trafficking field can better measure the impact of interventions. Further she suggested that the field may benefit from following the example of other areas of study where theories of change have shifted to a focus on prevention. She gave an example from violence against women research, that has moved toward prevention frameworks in recent years and has been quite successful in seeing risk factors decrease while protective factors increase14. Inter- agency Coordination Groups against TIP of United Nations (ICAT) in their 2016 issue paper also acknowledged the importance for CTIP programs to draw on the knowledge accumulated in other sectors as social protection, sexual and gender-based violence, etc. (ICAT, 2016, p.vi). In addition, in the editorial of the American Journal of Public Health edition of July 2017, a message to shift the anti-trafficking paradigm toward approaches rooted in other disciplines is emphasized (Rothman et al. 2017).

Exploring the above arguments, USAID Asia CTIP is proposing a measurement methodology that focus on the evidence Learning from the measurement around the changes of TIP determinants factors instead of TIP methodologies in anti-corruption, public incidence and prevalence. Just like measurement in other fields health and disaster risk reduction like anti-corruption (Klitgaard, 2014), public health (FHI, 2008) interventions --where it can predict the and disaster risk reduction interventions (Mitchell et al, 2014) - impact of the interventions before the -where they can predict the impact of their interventions incidence happen—we want to explore before the incidence happens—we want to explore these these promising practices in CTIP promising practices in CTIP interventions. Focusing the interventions. measurement on the evidence around TIP determinants reflects a shifting of thinking about what success looks like in We propose developing a data-backed CTIP interventions, from reduced TIP incidence or prevalence "proximate determinants" model that to reduced risk factors for TIP. integrates diverse data from existing sources to predict the changes of TIP This shifting of measurement focus is worth to be explored as risk factors as the basis for estimating it will provide a cost-effective, contextual but consistent at-risk populations. This will provide a measurement15 of the state of TIP’s key determinant factors cost-effective, contextual but consistent that later will allow for CTIP interventions to focus on the measurement of the state of TIP’s key targeted populations, geographical areas and time periods in which TIP’s risk factors are most likely to be happening. The determinant factors that allows for CTIP idea is radical in its simplicity because the focus of the interventions to focus on the targeted measurement is on the proximate determinants or risks of TIP, populations, geographical areas and time instead of TIP incidence. Proximate determinants approach periods in which TIP’s risk factors are disaggregates the many interacting risk factors (socio- most likely to be happening. economic, psychological and structural factors) that affect the creation and re-creation of trafficking in persons and arranges them in a multi-dimensional causal chain (Perry and McEwing, 2013). Anti-human trafficking community have learned that documenting TIP incidence and measuring trafficked population is difficult and problematic. However, we believe they can be predicted by "proximate determinants" (as depicted in the figure below) that directly influence the likelihood that these risk factors are materialized. As the diagram shows, some of those proximate determinants are themselves directly affected by more distal underlying factors, which in turn can also be measured and included in a data-centric model.

14 For further details, please see the discussion notes that is available at https://www.freetheslaves.net/wp- content/uploads/2017/01/2016-Freedom-from-Slavery-Forum-Final-Report.pdf 15 Not like TIP incidence data that are highly contested due to its legal and definitional dimensions (e.g. what constitutes TIP and an effective criminal justice response to trafficking), measurement of TIP determinants factors will provide less definitional contestation because the nature of the data is around “social facts” data or macro-level data that are relatively well-defined by other disciplines such as migration rate, employment rate, rule of law or indices of corruption in the recruitment and migration process, the agglomeration of shadow migration industries, etc. 60 | P a g e

The model draws on antecedents in public health discipline in estimating the size of hidden populations using their exposure to risks, and later adapted to better understand the evolution and impact of an epidemic such as HIV (Pisani, et al, 2003). Later on, in identifying the where the risk factors are materialized, the approach follows a simple supply and demand logic that is rooted in the literature on the economics of crime and migration as described by Omar Mahmoud and Trebesch (2010, p.174), that trafficking and exploitation are the obvious consequence of migration pressure in a world of closed borders. The growing, but unsatisfied demand for legal migration options has created a breeding ground for criminal organizations and exploitative employers, who have learned to make a profit from people’s desire to work abroad. Following this logic, the different stage of economic development and inequality of incomes between countries/areas that drives urbanization or regional emigration rates constitute the underlying risk factor for TIP. These economic determinants are not the only factor as some studies also show the role of socio-cultural and psychological factors in motivating some groups of people to migrate (Righard, 2012).

In this methodology, we distinguish two types of risk factors that influence the level of individual risk situation, inherent risks and their exposure to external risks. This distinction is critical because risks to trafficking are individual and context-specific realms at the same time. For instance, a migrant whose knowledgeable about safe migration, has done necessary actions to protect herself/himself, etc. might be still at risk if she migrates through a corrupt recruitment-migration process and situated in an agglomeration of shadow migration industries. In other hand, a migrant will be less vulnerable to TIP compared with the other migrants if she/he has taken actions to protect herself/himself. Now we can see that there are different types of risks in different stages of migration. For measurement purpose, we need to develop a typology of risks to TIP following the stages of migrant’s journey among different categories of populations as described below:

1. Member of general population that are more sensitive to the push and pull factors are considered as potential migrants. 2. Some of the potential migrants who are willing to depart and to take risks in the migration process, are called as prospective migrant. Their level of vulnerability varies, depending on their exposure to internal and external vulnerability factors such as lack of knowledge and attitude on safe migration, debt bondage and weak family/social network. 3. Prospective migrants with high exposure with vulnerability factors are called as vulnerable populations. Then, the migrants will be at higher risk for TIP when the recruitment and migration journey are situated in a risky migration that featured with bad governance in migration system such as corruption and indices of agglomeration of shadow migration industries16. 4. Population of vulnerable migrants in a risky migration system in a risky labor market is called as population at risk.

Risk taxonomy at different sub-population as described above will help TIP prevention intervention because it informs us specific behavioral goals for each sub-population (general population, potential migrant, prospective migrant, vulnerable migrant, and migrant at risk for TIP). By focusing on risk exposure, the focus of the intervention would be risk reduction instead of decreasing the supply because of the continuous supply of vulnerable populations, international border issues, and crime prevention obstacles, decreasing the supply of human trafﬁcking is economically less efﬁcient, although vitally necessary (Wheaton et al, 2010). This distinction of risks at different sub-population level is important in setting up the methodology for measurement of CTIP interventions through clarifying the target group and relevant behavioral goals. For example, among potential migrants, since the desired change is that people taking alternative to risky migration that may result in trafficking, focus of the measurement would be on reduction of migration/urbanization rate. For prospective migrants, the behavioral goal is that they will take steps to protect themselves from exploitation (reducing vulnerability), therefore, the measurement would be focused on number of prospective migrants taking necessary steps to protect themselves from exploitation.

16 Migration risks (for example corruption in the migration process along with agglomeration of shadow migration industries) will increase illegal migration that is highly likely to increase the risks of trafficking. On the demand side, demand for cheap manual workers and commercial sex services has fostered the emergence of shadow migration industries offering services such as border crossings and the procurement of illegal work abroad. High demand will pull a large-scale emigration that create agglomeration and free-riding opportunities for traffickers. Just like legal businesses, criminal activities tend to agglomerate in larger markets (Omar Mahmoud and Trebesch (2010, p.176). 61 | P a g e

Taxonomy of Key Determinants of TIP Prevalence and Its Implication on Measurement of CTIP Interventions

MIGRATORY PRESSURES VULNERABILITY FACTORS MIGRATION RISKS TIP RISKS LABOR MARKET RISKS (Potential Migrants) (Vulnerable Populations: (Demand Side Risk) (Governance-Structural (Migrant At-Risk) Prospective Migrants) Risks)

Socio-economic factors: Desire to migrate Knowledge and attitude on safe Migration rate Trafficking in Demand for cheap Persons manual workers and Poverty, Formal education, migration Availability of safe migration (has opportunity, commercial sex Unemployment, Gender The perception of opportunity services (Criminal Law) ability and services Labor Force Involved in Agriculture motivation-OAM) and to take risks in the Rule of law or indices of Conflict and displacement migration process Indices of monopsony corruption in the Inequality, discriminations and social Household characteristics incl. recruitment and migration labor market for low- skilled jobs ties debt prevalence process Forced Labor

Family/social network The agglomeration of shadow Issues Agglomeration and free- riding opportunities for migration industries (Labor Law) Individual/psychological factors: recruiters Scale of illegal migration Satisfaction/achievement motivation Not Migrate Rule of law or indices of Personality (sensation seeking, locus Case prevalence (lack of OAM) corruption in the of control, etc.) migration process Perceptions of migration General population with Case prevalence Personal/family history developmental needs (no = direct TIP issues) Aspirations for a better life and new

opportunities

Secondary Prevention Goal: Primary Prevention at individual level: Structural Primary Prevention: Overall CTIP Prevention Market-based Reducing of migration risks Goal: Prevention: To reduce people’s desire to migrate To reduce the number of prospective (levels of safe migration) by providing them with socio- migrants undertaking risky migration Reducing prevalence of Reducing labor market economic options that give them by providing them opportunity-ability- migrants being risks alternatives to migration motivation (OAM) to take actions to trafficked reduce the vulnerability factors

62 | P a g e Assessing Impacts of CTIP Interventions through measuring prevalence of population at risk for TIP by assessing the level of risks in four key predictors/determinants of TIP prevalence: 1) Migratory Pressures, 2) Vulnerability Factors, 3) Migration Risks, and 4) Labor Market Risk

Section III: How will we test it? Piloting the model in Cambodia, Nepal or Thailand through the following steps: • Step 1, Oct-Nov 2017: Refine the proximate determinants model (the diagram in this note) for different determinants through a systematic review of published and unpublished literature quantifying the pathways and associations in the model. • Step 2, Dec 2017-Jan 2018: Develop a panel of potential data sources and indicators, and test their fit against parameters in the model. For example, as an indicator of risks in migration, do the agglomeration of shadow migration industries and scale of illegal migration are available? • Step 3, Feb-Mar 2018: Develop candidate models in certain context and sector (for example domestic work), and test them against data for at least two different patterns in two different data-rich country settings. We will calibrate the model first using data from one source country known to have high levels of emigration. We'll validate it against data from a destination country with levels of demand for low-skilled labor that vary by setting. • Step 4, Apr-Jun 2018: Develop a data-centric17 case study and test the efficacy of learned models. • Step 5, Jul 2018: Publish the model.

We do not, in the pilot phase, intend to generate any original data: the value of the model is that it allows limited resources for costly surveillance to be better targeted by using data already captured through routine systems or harvested from electronic sources to identify those areas most in need of surveillance.

Should we succeed in developing a "proof of concept" model providing robust indications for the likely TIP risks emerging, we would expect to move forward in three ways. Firstly, we would aim to validate the model for a wider number of areas, in a wider array of settings, and to test the model prospectively in a setting where actual levels of TIP risks are unknown. Secondly, we would work (as far as possible through existing channels) to support bilateral projects in integrating the model into their M&E efforts, so that resources for data collection can be targeted more effectively. Thirdly, as data accumulate and the model grows more robust, we would aim to extend the modeling work to investigate, using data from field studies, the relative contribution of changes in different parameters to a reduction in TIP risks, in order to guide future prevention efforts.

With regard to estimation of size of the population, estimating the disaggregated target populations based on their exposure to risk is much more manageable. For instance, by assessing the population size in the supply side (potential migrants and prospective migrants) and the indices of migration risk (intermediary stages) and the labor market risks (at the demand side), we can formulate the estimation model for population at risk. Later, by adding data on victims or case management, we may develop estimation of TIP population. By having clarity on the type of risks at certain sub- population, measurement of the impact of CTIP interventions (i.e. in terms of reduction of level of risk (vulnerability) and size of population at risk) now is practicable.

This proximate determinants or risk-based taxonomy methodology for estimating the impact of CTIP interventions is innovative because it does not require either new data collection or expensive surveillance mechanisms such as population survey. Instead, it unifies existing data from sources as varied as customs and excise records, migration rate, employment rate, labor price indices, medio monitoring, case management data, police seizures, internet search terms and others—data sets currently available to the USAID Asia CTIP through existing collaborative activities with implementing partners and country awards/associate awards program.

17 Data centric refers to an architecture where data is the primary and permanent asset, and applications come and go. In the data centric architecture, the data model precedes the implementation of any given application and will be around and valid long after it is gone.

63 | P a g e

The model then correlates these wider datasets with anonymized, aggregated data from more conventional TIP information systems (case management, partner organizations’ data, etc.) and regular national survey rounds (which provide information on corruption/good governance index, for example)—to predict where TIP risks are most likely to arise. While any one of the measures on its own would not be a robust indicator of potential emerging TIP, several measures pulling in the same direction would build confidence that the model was identifying sets of conditions conducive to TIP, thereby indicating an area meriting more targeted and costly TIP surveillance. We believe the model could be parameterized for various sectors, and expect it to be robust across a wide range of geographic settings.

64 | P a g e

References Brunner, Jessie (2015), Inaccurate Numbers, Inadequate Policies: Enhancing Data to Evaluate the Prevalence of Human Trafficking in ASEAN. East-West Center, Honolulu Dottridge, Mike (2015), The Creation of Trafficking. Open Democracy, 28 July 2015. Accessed from https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/mike-dottridge/creation- of-%E2%80%98trafficking%E2%80%99 on 12 July 2017 Dragiewicz, Molly (ed.) (2015), Global Human Trafficking: Critical Issues and Context, London: Routledge Family Health International (2008), The Asian Epidemic Model (AEM) Projections for HIV/AIDS in Thailand: 2005-2025. http://www.aidsdatahub.org/sites/default/files/documents/The_Asian_Epidemic_Model_Projections _for_HIVAIDS_in_Thailand_2005_2025.pdf Gallagher, AT and R Surtees, Measuring the Success of Counter-Trafficking Interventions in the Criminal Justice Sector: Who decides—and how?’, Anti-Trafficking Review, issue 1, 2012, pp. 10— 30, www.antitraffickingreview.org Gould, Amanda J. (2010), From Pseudoscience to Protoscience: Estimating Human Trafficking and Modern Forms of Slavery. Second Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Human Trafficking, Paper 6. Harkins, Benjamin (2017), Constraints to a Robust Evidence Base for Anti-Trafficking Interventions, Anti-Trafficking Review, issue 8, 2017, pp. 113—130, www.antitraffickingreview.org ILO / Bruce Kutnick, Patrick Belser & Gergana Danailva-Trainor (2007), Methodologies for global and national estimation of human trafficking victims: current and future approaches Geneva, International Labour Office. Inter-agency Coordination Group against Trafficking in Persons-ICAT (2016), Pivoting toward the Evidence: Building effective counter-trafficking responses using accumulated knowledge and a shared approach to monitoring, evaluation and learning. Issue Paper, Vienna. http://icat.network/sites/default/files/publications/documents/16-10259_Ebook.pdf Klitgaard, Robert (2014), Addressing corruption together, background paper was prepared for the OECD Symposium on Anti-Corruption Development Assistance: Good Practices among Providers of Development Co-operation, which took place in Paris on 11-12 December 2014 Mitchell, Tom et al (2014), Setting, measuring and monitoring targets for reducing disaster risk Recommendations for post-2015 international policy frameworks, Overseas Development Institute, London. Omar Mahmoud, Toman, and Trebesch, Christoph (2010). The economics of human trafficking and labour migration: Micro-evidence from Eastern Europe. Journal of Comparative Economics 38 (2010) 173–188. Available at http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/LeIlli2010/trebesch_c4269.pdf Poućki, Saśa (2012), The Quest for Root Causes of Human Trafficking: A Study on the Experience of Marginalized Groups, with a focus on the Republic of Serbia. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-Newark Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Panos London (2009), How can complexity theory contribute to more effective development and aid evaluation? Workshop Report. Dialogue at the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, 3 July 2009, London, UK. Perry, Kelsey McGregor and Lindsay McEwing (2013). How do social determinants affect human trafficking in Southeast Asia, and what can we do about it? A systematic review. Health and Human Rights Volume 15, Number 2.

65 | P a g e

Pisani, Elizabeth, et al (2003), Back to basics in HIV prevention: focus on exposure. British Medical Journal. 2003 Jun 21;326(7403):1384-7. Righard, Erica (ed.) (2012), Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations 3/12, Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM) Malmö University, Sweden. Rothman, Emily F. et al (2017) Public Health Research Priorities to Address US Human Trafficking, American Journal of Public Health 107, no. 7 (July 1, 2017): pp. 1045-1047. Siegel, Dina, de Wildt, Roos (Eds.) (2016) Ethical Concerns in Research on Human Trafficking, Studies of Organized Crime. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Surtees, Rebecca and Sarah Craggs (2010), Beneath the surface: methodological issues in research and data collection with assisted trafficking victims, IOM and NEXUS Institute. The Freedom from Slavery Forum (2016), Report of The Freedom from Slavery Forum October 2016, available at https://www.freetheslaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2016-Freedom-from- Slavery-Forum-Final-Report.pdf van Dijk, J. (2015). Dijk, J.J.M. van (2015), Estimating human trafficking worldwide: a multi-mode strategy. Forum on Crime and Society, Vol 8, 1-15. Wheaton, E. M., Schauer, E. J. and Galli, T. V. (2010), Economics of Human Trafficking. International Migration, 48: 114–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00592.x USAID (2009), An Evaluation Framework for USAID-funded TIP Prevention and Victim Protection Programs. The Social Transition Series Doc ID: PN-ADR-431 USAID (2012), Counter-Trafficking in Persons Policy. Yea, Sallie (2017), Editorial: The politics of evidence, data and research in anti-trafficking work’, Anti-Trafficking Review, issue 8, 2017, pp. 1—13, www.antitraffickingreview.org

66 | P a g e

ANNEX IV: Concept Note: Setting a Collaborative CTIP Learning Agenda CTIP Summit 24-25 January 2018, Bangkok Thailand

Background USAID Asia CTIP is a 5-year USAID funded initiative to combat trafficking in persons in Asia. The project is implemented by Winrock International and its five implementing partners, each with specialized expertise: The Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW), Liberty Asia, the Mekong Club, NEXUS Institute and SSG Advisors. The Project emphasizes learning, regional and cross-border collaboration and private-sector engagement to combat trafficking-in-persons (CTIP).

The Project aims to build evidence and strengthen learning around trafficking in persons towards the development of an adaptive learning agenda for Project and CTIP activities throughout Asia. Our goal is to multiply the impact of CTIP initiatives throughout the region.

Towards this effort, USAID Asia CTIP will convene annual Learning Summits at which stakeholders can share and learn from each other on new thinking and approaches to reduce the knowledge gap around CTIP. From this learning platform, stakeholders will be encouraged and supported to take the learning forward into action.

The first USAID Asia CTIP Learning Summit to be held in January 2018 will build on USAID’s January 2016 Evidence-Based Gathering Summit. The 2018 Learning Summit aims to set a collective learning agenda on CTIP which will help stakeholders identify knowledge gaps and prioritize action.

Vision: USAID Asia CTIP believes increasing knowledge and cooperation among CTIP stakeholders will lead to more effective action to reduce TIP in Asia.

USAID Asia CTIP, as a regional project, will contribute to knowledge and good practices, as well as introduce models and interventions on CTIP work in Asia through the project’s learning platform. Based on existing knowledge, effective approaches will be adapted, replicated and scaled up and challenges and missteps critically examined to spur learning and innovation. Partnership is the core value of our approach. Stakeholders who do are not able to join the Summit in person will be engaged on-line and through social media.

Following the Summit, USAID Asia CTIP will apply those issues and practices identified as priorities for action through testing of model practices and interventions and expanding knowledge and building evidence.

Objective of the 2018 CTIP Learning Summit The Learning Summit will focus on learning within the CTIP community and enhanced cooperation among stakeholders across the region, including identifying possible partnerships and concrete actions to moving forward.

Key objectives of the Summit are to: 1. Share research and learning on TIP in Asia 2. Identify and learn about promising and effective models/actions/interventions on CTIP 3. Foster cooperation and identify ways forward

Expected outputs for the Learning Summit: A shared vision in research and action to reduce TIP in Asia including: o Learning on CTIP

67 | P a g e

o Civil society engagement, advocacy and action o Policy strengthening and coordinated implementation o Private sector engagement

Date and Venue: The Summit will be held on January 24-25, 2017 in Bangkok, Thailand. Venue to be confirmed.

Participants: Approximately 150 participants including representatives from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal and Thailand. Participants will include government officials, INGOs and LNGOs, business leaders, ASEAN representatives, researchers and academics, civil society organizations, donors, and multilateral institutions.

Overall trajectory of Asia CTIP Summits

USAID Asia CTIP Learning Summits Summit Year 4 Summit Year

3 Promoting sustainability and Summit Year replication of action • Expand modules for muliplier 2 Learning from application of impact. knowledge • 5 Ps model: Contribution to TIP Summit Year reduction. • Using learning for application of 1 Collaboration for Action knowledge: coming up with tangible points of action on what • Improve collaboration to transfer works and what does not. knowledge to action. Setting learning agenda for • Idenfity further gaps in knowledge and challenges as action repeting loops. • Learn from gaps and persisting • FM 1: Documentation of challanges. possible models and learning, • Prioritize actions for testing and extract lessons learned. implementation, partnership • FM2 & FM 3: Collaboration in models. Asia: CSOs, Private sector • Develop projects to nurture engagement collaboration in Asia.

Accumulating, testing and evaluating throughout the process (i.e. follow up workshop, pilot projects, etc.)

These regional CTIP Summits will represent an ongoing process throughout the 5-year project implementation period.

Summit Year 1: In early 2017, USAID Asia CTIP started conducting research and assessments in various areas related to CTIP.

The Learning Summit will be held in January 2018 to provide a platform for the CTIP community to share knowledge, identify learning gaps and prioritize actions. This year the learning summit expects to foster cooperation around key priorities for CTIP research and action among stakeholders.

Year 2 Summit: Participants will report back on actions taken since the first Summit and on progress made towards the shared vision and goals set out in the previous year, sharing experiences and learning about what worked and what did not. Stakeholders will continue to identify knowledge gaps and challenges as part of a continuing learning loop. Feedback will include reporting on ongoing initiatives and new findings. Participants will detail concrete findings and modify and propose models.

68 | P a g e

During the 2nd Summit, CSO collaboration will also be established with focus on agenda setting and strengthening capacity for advocacy.

The process will continue for the 3rd Summit. That is continuing to understand and build evidence, test models and tools, expanding and replicating success and examining challenges encountered.

The 4th/final Summit will consolidate/accumulate learning from the beginning to the end of the project and assess what has been achieved in an effort to identify effective methods for evidence gathering and tools for combatting human trafficking and determining what contribution we made to reducing TIP.

Timeline for CTIP Summits Project Fiscal Year Learning Summit Dates Implementation Year Year 1 December 2016 – September 2017 N/A Year 2 October 2017 – September 2018 1st Summit: January 2018 Year 3 October 2018 – September 2019 2nd Summit: tentatively January- March 2019 Year 4 October 2019 – September 2020 3rd Summit: tentatively January- March 2020 Year 5 October 2020 – September 2021 4th Summit: tentatively April-June 2021

Ongoing process in between the Summits USAID Asia CTIP will provide technical and financial support to promote projects, actions and research in accordance with the priorities identified in the Summit. The Project will also work in alliance with other international agencies and donors to encourage them to contribute resources to this process. USAID Asia CTIP will also establish follow-up mechanisms and provide guidance and support as needed for projects and research. Close monitoring and tracking of these initiatives will provide further evidence and best practices to validate assumptions, promote learning and provide evidence for scaling up and coordination as appropriate throughout the region.

69 | P a g e

Day I: Translating Knowledge into Action

Time Activity Facilitator/ Speaker Side Event

08:00 - 09:00 Registration 09:00 - 09:30 Opening remarks USAID and Permanent No TBD Secretary of MSDHS 09:30 - 09:45 Welcome and objectives Winrock Int’l No Introduction to objectives and methods of the Summit 09: 45 - 10:00 Participatory VDO (need a name for IOMX No this) 10:00 – 10:20 Setting the stage Speaker: Anne Gallagher No This session will introduce/update participants on CTIP efforts in Asia including key successes and achievements and pressing issues to be addressed.

Objective: Since this summit is built upon the previous Evidence Gathering Summit, January 2016 the message from the keynote speaker should make the reference to her previous speech. Anne could highlight the followings: • SDG • ACTIP convention and progress so far? What are the opportunities? • Evidence – the need for stronger evidence to counter trafficking The need for consolidation of various initiatives and focus on make it works rather creating new initiatives. A strong collaboration across sectors is a must. The vital role of private sectors. 10:20 – 10:50 Coffee break Side Event 10:50 – 12:30 Knowledge and Learning - What do we Facilitator: Anna Olson, No know about TIP in the Lower Mekong ILO (tbc) Region? Or Panel: • USAID Asia CTIP Research Review – Ms.Edelweiss Silan, Technical NEXUS (confirmed) Program Director, The • Study on compensation – HRDF (tbc) Border Consortium (tbc) • Private Sector Landscape Assessment – SSG (highlight what companies would like in terms of knowledge and learning (confirmed) • Media’s role in knowledge and learning around human trafficking –Thomson Reuters (tbc) Daily news on TIP, conferences on TIP around the world (tbc)

70 | P a g e

Objective: To lay out a foundation of ‘state of the art’ TIP research for the Summit based on what has been learned so far by the project and other key stakeholders.

This session will present different types of learning and research on the “state of the art” on TIP in SE Asia. Speakers from diverse fields will share learning from their work to contribute to broad knowledge base. Panelists will include researchers as well as media and practitioners, each presenting different types of information, data and learning that can contribute to the evidence base/our knowledge.

Notes to facilitator: Key framing questions will include: What type of information is most useful? What do we know and what more do we need to know for our work? How do we collect it?

Expected results: 1. Key learning and knowledge gaps identified (New action and policy research identified) 2. New evidence based practices identified

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 1330 - 1430 Research and Learning Gallery Walk 3 side events? (1 Facilitator welcomes participants back from lunch and explains the Research and Learning hour) Gallery Walk. USAID? This session will provide an opportunity for participants to learn about research/learning/knowledge from around the region. Organizations/institutions/universities from the region will display posters, visual presentations, in booths. Representatives from each organization will explain their research and answer any questions from participants as they walk through. In addition to sharing research results/learning, presenters will be asked to answer the following questions: • What knowledge gap does this fill (or what is this information useful for?) • What more do we need to know for our work? • How do we collect it?

Participants will be invited to circulate among the presentations and share their experience/research/knowledge, asking any questions that they have about how we can improve our knowledge/learning to improve our interventions.

71 | P a g e

After 45 minutes of rotating around the presentations, participants will be invited to spend 10 minutes answering three guiding questions which will be posted on the wall by posting a note. • What more do we need to know for our work? Disaggregate this according to theme (prevention, protection, prosecution, partnership, private sector + post it notes are color coded to reflect what role of the respondent) • How do we collect it?

The facilitator will invite participants back to their seats and spend the last five minutes of the session highlighting some of the main/key/common answers to the three questions. The full summary of results will then be compiled and shared with participants as part of the closing session.

Alternative: end session without comment and present later in day

(Alternative that this is done with some technological approach. The advantage of using a wall would be that comments and suggestions can remain for the workshop and people can be invited to add, comment further and read other people’s comments.) The session will highlight different types and new research/learning on TIP in the SE Asian region. While presentations will include the three priority sectors (construction, agriculture and domestic work), there will also be presentations from those working in other sectors or on other aspects of the CTIP response in the region.

Displays will represent different sectors or themes and have a clear rationale for inclusion (i.e. some relevance to the project or general CTIP responses). Some examples include:

1. UN-ACT’s study on trafficking for marriage, Cambodia to China (rationale: unique form of TIP/route) 2. ILO study on female migrants in the construction (rationale: construction sector) 3. Chab Dai Butterfly research (rationale: longitudinal study) 4. Local NGOs in Myanmar or others? 5. PWC/SSG CTIP initiative mapping 6. TMC – Private sector survey results 7. Mahidol 8. Other Academia from GAATW mapping

**geographical representation and opportunity to build relationships

14:30 – 1600 Enhancing/improving transnational and Facilitator: 14:30 – national cooperation and responses on Mr. Edmund Von Tai Soon, 17:00 (2.5 TIP in Asia (Panel) Representative of Malaysia to hours) the ASEAN AICHR 3 side events Objective: To share possible models and approaches to support national and Sessions transnational responses to TIP in Asia. could focus on business

e.g. The session will begin with an introduction from the facilitator about the importance of recruitment, standards

72 | P a g e

the regional/transnational responses to TIP in etc Asia including the central role and importance (Concordia?) of ACTIP and the ASEAN framework. The (TMC ?) facilitator will then highlight that the regional/transnational responses are dependent on national level implementation and this session will offer an opportunity to learn about the various national level mechanisms and responses available that can be considered by ASEAN Member States. Each panelist will present a different type of intervention including different variations on how these models are designed and implemented (and the pros and cons of each?)

Panel: • National reporting mechanism – Marika McAdam • NRM/NRS – Paul Buckley, UNACT • Victim identification approaches including tools and indicators (how this tool could also be used by company) • Victim assistance approaches including guidelines and standards – Mr.Wanchai Roujanavong

(As much as possible include discussion on what company do and how do they report on TIP?) 16:00 – Enhancing/improving transnational and Facilitators Cont’d 17:00 Mr. Edmund Von Tai Soon? side events national cooperation and responses on (include UNACT? TIP in Asia (Group Discussions) coffee break) The objective of this session is to provide National reporting mechanism participants with further opportunity to learn - Marika McAdam about the four different models for national/transnational cooperation/responses. NRM/NRS - Paul Buckley, The participants will be divided into four UNACT working groups by topic. Each working group will be led by a facilitator and a notetaker will Victim identification – XXXX record the discussion. Panelists from the previous session will serve as resource Victim assistance – persons for the working groups. Mr.Wanchai Roujanavong

73 | P a g e

Working groups based on 4 topics from previous session: • National reporting mechanism • NRM/NRS • Victim identification approaches including tools and indicators • Victim assistance approaches including guidelines and standards Guiding questions: Do any similar approaches/models exist? Where? How are they working? What models do we think would work in our country? Our region? What is the role of CSOs in these models? How can CSOs engage in and support these processes? What are the current challenges and gaps in our country? Our region? What are the opportunities for cooperation and ways forward? 17:00 – Reporting back from previous session – 5 Mr. Edmund Von Tai Soon, 17:30 Representative of Malaysia minutes per working group + closing to the ASEAN AICHR • National reporting mechanism - Marika McAdam

• NRM/NRS - Paul Buckley, UNACT

• Victim identification – XXXX

• Victim assistance – Mr.Wanchai Roujanavong

Evaluation of the day 17:30 • Welcome reception • Launce AA Award Thailand and Laos (tbc)

74 | P a g e

Day II: Collaborating and Prioritizing Action

Time Activity Facilitator/ Speaker Side event

09:00 - Video of participants responding to day 1 Susan Ward, COP, USAID 09:30 video & Asia CTIP Recap of Day 1

09:30 – Lessons learned from private sector’s SSG 3 side 11:30 CTIP initiatives events (2 Possible panelists: hours) 1 hr 30 mins - MARS This interactive session aims to generate - Unilever Perhaps discussions and focus on sharing the lessons - Bechtel limit to 1 learned from the private sector’s effort to - Hilton rooms only? address TIP in their supply chains: what - TMC member worked, what didn’t and what challenges companies? remain. Possible sub-topics: worker’s voice, grievance mechanism, stakeholder engagement and partnerships.

Possible subject • Partnership announcement • Seafood watch people to present their work • Hilton to talk about how they approach TIP in their change

Last 30 mins is reserving for: Announcement partnerships (or intention to partner etc.)

11:30 – USAID RDMA presentation (tbc) USAID 3 breakout 12:30 rooms available

Modern Slavery Act, other regulations? 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – Applying accumulated knowledge on Speaker: Phil Marshall n/a 14:00 CTIP program design and implementation

75 | P a g e

Analysis of counter TIP program evaluations highlights that the design of CTIP program frequently fails to reflect accumulated knowledge in CTIP and related fields, thus perpetuating past short-comings in the response. This session highlights key lessons that do not yet appear to be learned, discusses possible reasons for this and suggests possible solutions.

14:00 – Title to be decided (Counter Facilitator: Kharisma n/a 15:30 Trafficking metrics? How do we know Nugroho, M&E Specialist, we make a difference?) Winrock International This session will explore the importance of M&E in informing and guiding our CTIP Panel: interventions. This will include a discussion of • Mike Dottridge the importance of M&E in examining a • Sophie Pinwill program’s logic including the need to look at • LSTH and challenge any untested assumptions that • Private sector may underpin a project or initiative. The (confirm with Mam) session will also highlight and share concrete • Benjamin, ILO examples of the complexity of the TIP field in terms of measurement and the importance of capturing failures to guide future initiatives and interventions. Presenters will share their experiences of measuring the impact of CTIP efforts including key challenges and issues faced.

• Prevention - Alternative methodologies on measuring CTIP intervention by Epidemiologist from London School of Tropical Hygiene (LSTH), tbc • Protection - Mike Dottridge, tbc • Prosecution - Sophie Pinwheel, AAPTIP, tbc • Private sector rep (tbd) 15:30 – 16:00 Coffee break 16:00 – Wrap up, Voting and Grant Program Winrock n/a 17:00 Announcement

• Summary and presentation from each of the sessions on key points and learning. • Prioritize key learning and way forward (using online voting) • Winrock making pledges and identifying ways forward; invite other

76 | P a g e

organizations/institutions to also make pledges and identify ways forward over the coming year.

Closing remarks

Evaluation

77 | P a g e

ANNEX V: BRIEFING PAPER: Civil Society Perspectives on Advocacy Around Trafficking in Persons in the ASEAN Region

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This briefing paper has explored the types of civil society organizations (CSOs) working on trafficking in persons (TIP) and TIP-related advocacy in five ASEAN countries: Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand. It draws on the perspectives and experiences of CSOs themselves and highlights the diversity of CSOs working on TIP in some capacity. These CSOs all had different goals and plans for the coming years, yet some commonalities also emerged:

• The legal framework governing TIP at national levels is perceived as sufficient in four of the five countries, and CSOs are focused on implementation of the law rather than law reform; • Current opportunities for law reform are perceived to be on related issues, such as migrant worker protection, labor protections for all, child rights and women’s rights. • Space for advocacy is narrowing across much of the ASEAN region, yet CSOs have found ways of continuing to work on TIP and to engage decision-makers in policy discussions; • Few CSOs are aware of ACTIP and what it would mean for their countries of work, and are generally skeptical of ASEAN processes and commitment to rights protections. • The capacity of organizations to increase their advocacy work is severely constrained by funding limitations, as they perceive donors to have shifted away from funding advocacy work, and indeed from funding anti-trafficking work. Some also lack information and training on both TIP, and on developing an advocacy campaign. • Despite the challenges, CSOs were enthusiastic to re-engage in TIP advocacy around implementation of ACTIP and requested to be included in any follow-up program.

Introduction In March 2017, the ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (ACTIP), came into force following ratification by seven ASEAN governments.18 This comprehensive agreement commits states parties to strengthening their work to eliminate trafficking in persons (TIP) through prevention, protection, prosecution, and cross-border collaboration. It is supported by the ACTIP Plan of Action agreed in 2016.

ACTIP is the first agreement on TIP in ASEAN, and a remarkable statement of commitment in a region where binding instruments are rare.19 It also comes at a time when ASEAN member states are taking proactive steps towards cooperation and integration. Accordingly, The Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW) views ACTIP as an opportunity to strengthen and improve government policy in the ASEAN region to better promote and protect the rights of trafficked persons.

18 Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. 19 ACTIP follows other regional and sub-regional conventions to combat trafficking in persons around the world. In South Asia, member states of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) adopted a convention on preventing and combatting the trafficking in women and children for prostitution in 2002 that has been in force since 2005. In Europe, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 3 May 2005 adopted the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, following a series of other initiatives by the Council of Europe on TIP. The CoE convention entered into force on 1 February 2008, following its 10th ratification. Other regional bodies such as the Organization of American States or the African Union do not have regional conventions to address TIP although the issue has been discussed in many of their sessions. 78 | P a g e

This paper provides an overview of the perspectives of one sector that will be essential in any policy reform effort, civil society organizations (CSOs). It looks at CSOs in five ASEAN countries Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand, and draws on qualitative in-person interviews to:

• Understand the political context for policy advocacy in ASEAN from the perspective of CSOs; and • Engage CSOs in a process of self-assessment of their capacity to carry out policy advocacy at the regional level

More specifically, the paper identifies which CSOs at national and regional levels are working on TIP, particularly those that work on TIP-related advocacy; the kinds of advocacy that CSOs are undertaking; and what they perceive as successes, opportunities, and challenges to working on advocacy around ACTIP.

Field work for the paper was undertaken between July 22 and August 11 by a consultant and GAATW staff in each of the five countries. A total of 40 people from 30 CSOs were interviewed in one-hour in-person or Skype interviews. The interviews were semi-structured, allowing the interviewers to gather some common information as well as giving scope to follow other topics as they arose.20 Note that, to protect the confidentiality of the CSOs and speakers, they are not referenced by name in this briefing paper. A full list of participants, however, is included at the end. Support for this mapping project was provided by the USAID Asia CTIP program through Winrock International. It is anticipated that this mapping is the first phase of a two-phase exploration of CSO advocacy in the region. 21

The findings from the mapping are summarized in the following nine recommendations. 1. CSOs working on TIP Vary in Type, Approach, and Work. Most work within larger social justice frameworks The CSO mapping identified 30 civil society organizations in the five countries that both work on TIP and are politically engaged in policy advocacy around trafficking in persons. Just over two-thirds (22) of the CSOs operate only in one country. The remaining 8 work in two or more countries and include two international networks, one regional network, and five organizations that implement projects in more than one country. Two of those are Burmese organizations which started in Thailand and now have offices in Yangon. Other organizations who work on TIP and not included in this mapping are small community-based organizations, large international NGOs or United Nations agencies, trade unions, the private sector, or organizations that primarily do direct service provision. As the goal of this study was to consult with local organizations and networks with some history and interest in policy advocacy, not reaching out to a large number of respondents is not necessarily a weakness.22

Notably, the CSOs were diverse in their approach to TIP. Only three of the 39 CSOs (two national CSOs and GAATW) describe themselves as “anti-trafficking” organizations. The remainder have anti- trafficking projects or work with trafficked persons, but identify themselves differently, per Figure 1. This range of organizations working on TIP reveals not only the complexity of human trafficking itself,

20 Detailed findings for each of the five countries, as well as a more detailed overview of the methods are contained in five country mapping papers. As these name CSOs directly, they are currently for internal use only. 21 Winrock International and its five partners (GAATW, SSG Advisors, NEXUS Institute, Liberty Asia, and the Mekong Club) are implementing the USAID Asia Counter Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) program (2016 – 2021). The goal of the five-year programme is to reduce trafficking in persons in Asia through a more effective regional response that addresses human trafficking risks, provides appropriate responses that transcend borders, and protects the rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons.More details on the programme can be found on https://www.winrock.org/project/ctip-asia/ 22 Note that in Laos and Myanmar where the number of CSOs is smaller, these conditions were more flexible. Also, in Cambodia one international development agency office, the Winrock Cambodia Office, because the staff are very familiar with the Cambodian advocacy context and the plans for the mapping. 79 | P a g e

but also its association to other social ills and harms such as exploitation or migrant workers or violence against women and children. All CSOs view themselves as part of larger national and international movements, whether that is migrant rights, women’s rights, or ending trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Focus of CSOs Working on TIP in ASEAN

Migrant Rights Women's Rights/GBV Sex-Workers Child rights Community development Labour rights Human rights/refugee rights Anti-trafficking

Figure 1: Organizational identity of CSOs included in mapping As well as identity, the CSOs were diverse in form. They included service-providing non-government organizations, research institutions, mass organizations or collectives based on individual membership, and networks or coalitions of organizations (see Figure 2). All the CSOs, regardless of type, were dependent on outside funding sources to fund staff and activities.

CSO TYPES INCLUDED IN MAPPING Development agency

Network/Coalition

NGO Mass org./Collective

Research Institute

Figure 2: CSO’s included in mapping by type

80 | P a g e

Finally, all CSOs were well-established and had highly experienced staff. The CSOs working on women’s rights in Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Myanmar were established in the late-1990s and have been working continuously for the past two decades to end violence against women, including trafficking. The remaining CSOs were founded in the early 2000s (except for three organizations working on Myanmar established in the last five years by long-time activists). 2. Most CSOs in ASEAN do some advocacy work, primarily on implementation of existing laws and policies. Of the 30 CSOs interviewed, 25 do some policy advocacy directed to changing of law and policy. The CSOs that do not do advocacy, primarily in Laos and Myanmar, and achieve social change in other ways.

Advocacy specifically on TIP is mainly on improving implementation of existing laws and policies. The exception to this is Myanmar, where at least one CSO felt the current law on TIP to be weak and in need of reform. In the other countries, interviewees judged that existing laws on trafficking are sufficient, but challenges remain in implementation by police, prosecutors, courts and immigration officials. Key concerns were cases of migrant workers deceived and exploited abroad not being treated as trafficking cases, and trafficking not being a high priority for government in terms of resources and training.

Top advocacy priorities across the region, therefore, are: better identification of trafficked persons; more just and timely remedies for trafficked persons including compensation; ending or reducing the time that trafficked persons spend detained for the purposes of protection; better cooperation between governments in cross-border trafficking cases; and more concerted efforts to combat trafficking. For sex-worker rights organizations, the priority is making raids and rescues of trafficked women and girls in the sex industry safer, protecting women’s privacy, and ending prosecution of sex-workers in the name of ending trafficking in persons.

We found it interesting that while women’s rights groups and migrant rights groups seem to engage with ASEAN to some extent anti-trafficking NGOs do not do so. The last decade which has brought in more resources into anti-trafficking work has also seen a decline in CSO led regional or national policy engagement on TIP. CSOs in Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Myanmar are directing their advocacy resources to reform of laws regulating overseas labor migration and the rights of domestic workers. Indeed, in Cambodia and Myanmar, trafficking is almost synonymous with labor migration to Thailand, and thus the issues were indistinct. CSOs in Indonesia were also working to strengthen laws on violence against women, and laws protecting children from sexual exploitation.

81 | P a g e

What is “Advocacy”?

For the purposes of this mapping of CSO work and perspectives, GAATW interpreted advocacy narrowly to include any effort to engage with the state for the reform of laws and policies affecting trafficking in persons. Some definitions provided by CSOs included:

- “People having, making, building space to make visible their solutions and recommendations” - “A well-coordinated campaign with clear goals” - “Action for change” - “Action within a long term process that leads to policy, behavioral, normative and cultural change” - “Changing something, changing policy, but not by ourselves”

In discussing their own advocacy work, however, interviewees defined the term more broadly to include public awareness raising campaigns and events, and legal representation of trafficked persons. Some distinguished between “policy advocacy”, “public advocacy” and “case-advocacy”.

Indeed, the boundaries between the different kinds of advocacy is often blurred. For example, CSOs holding community events also invite local or national government officials to raise their awareness of TIP. Representing clients in individual cases also often requires intensive lobbying. CSOs described lobbying police to identify cases as trafficking, lobbying prosecutors to prosecute the case, and lobbying relevant ministries to ensure cases moves forward. Organizations in Thailand spoke of meeting with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister about specific trafficking cases to push for their timely resolution. CSOs in Indonesia held street protests and media campaigns to urge the government to address the trafficking of a group of fishermen to South Africa. These cases then not only affect individual trafficked persons but are used as an opportunity to bring attention to TIP to the public and the highest levels of government.

3. CSOs rely on non-confrontational strategies for effecting change and on engaging affected communities in their advocacy work. Few CSOs included in this mapping approached advocacy in a systematic way, such as by developing goals, identifying targets, and then devising strategies for reaching those goals. This is partly because few national level CSOs have discrete advocacy programs or advocacy officers. Instead, advocacy work could better be described as opportunistic and/or reactive, such as taking advantage of opportunities to meet with government officials as they become open, or responding to specific problems that arise in case work or in day-to-day events.

That said, the CSOs approach these opportunities, however they come about, in a strategic manner. All spoke of the need to present concrete evidence of the harms described, such as by bringing cases that the CSOs were handling, compiling research drawn from field work, or undertaking more extensive research on issues such as recruitment fees, identification of trafficking cases or other issues. Further, several CSOs emphasized the importance of also bringing detailed suggested reforms to meetings with government, so that officials understand what is being asked of them.

Including the voices of affected communities directly in advocacy is also very common. This was seen most in mass membership organizations, where the members are also the CSO leaders, and advocacy planning is done through broad-based consultations or annual meetings. But even service- providing NGOs made efforts to empower and include affected communities in actions, high-level meetings or events. Two organizations in Thailand, for example, have organized groups of trafficked women and hold regular meetings to discuss needed policy changes. In Cambodia, one organization

82 | P a g e

has trained social ambassadors from among returned migrant workers to speak at events, and another organization working with children has recorded the anonymized voices of children describing their experiences and their recommendations.

Due to political constraints (see below) advocacy activities were limited to these “soft advocacy” approaches, such as meetings with government. Public naming and shaming, use of the media or publication of critical reports was considered ineffective and possibly dangerous. Only one CSO in Thailand, with an international board, engaged in more confrontational advocacy activities but acknowledged that their staff could be arrested at any time. Indonesia is the only country in which CSOs felt (relatively) safe holding street demonstrations or being openly critical.

Regional and international organizations have more developed advocacy programs with staff dedicated to following and attending regional events, and are more free to speak openly. International and regional networks, as well as international NGOs and United Nations agencies were described as essential partners for supporting the advocacy efforts of local CSOs and raising concerns and recommendations in ways that local CSOs cannot. 4. Political space for advocacy on TIP varies greatly between countries and affects the strategies used by CSOs. Political space is shrinking in most ASEAN countries. When asked about the impact that the political environment had on advocacy work, CSOs commonly responded that TIP is not a controversial issue and thus they do not feel exposed by working on TIP. In Thailand and Cambodia, in fact, CSOs perceived the government to be more engaged on TIP now than at any previous time, spurred mainly by pressure from the United States’ annual Trafficking in Persons reports. CSO representatives in these countries had found government officials more open to meeting than in previous years, and more genuine in their intentions to combat TIP, such as through interagency meetings between government and CSOs.

In Laos, Indonesia, and Myanmar, by contrast, CSOs perceived TIP as a low-priority issue for their respective governments, who are more concerned with peacebuilding, poverty alleviation and provision of basic services. The CSOs’ greatest concern was getting government to focus attention on the issue. However, they still believed that it was not a particularly sensitive issue and indeed was seen as more of a problem for destination countries.

Upon further discussion, however, three further themes emerged that provided nuance to this rosy assessment. First, CSOs that do not partner with the government on TIP noted that they did not have the same level of access and indeed felt vulnerable about speaking out. This included especially CSOs working with sex workers who are critical of government anti-trafficking initiatives, and human rights CSOs that explored the root causes of TIP.

In addition, CSOs in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Indonesia, described how their governments were asserting more control over CSOs through the mechanisms of licensing and registration (and deregistration procedures), audits of CSO income and projects, and even, in Laos’ case, approving individual programs. These controls were justified in terms of anti-terrorism or religious extremism. In Myanmar, the exception, space for civil society engagement has increased but only because it was coming from a very low base.

Related to the above, CSOs in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia felt more constrained than before about openly criticizing the government’s approach or discussing the root causes of trafficking such as land-grabbing, corruption and failing government services.

83 | P a g e

Regionally, CSOs perceived little tolerance within ASEAN for engaging with a critical or confrontational civil society. Relations between civil society and ASEAN have frequently been tense, especially when CSOs raise issues of civil and political rights, and accountability. However, the manifestation of this tension is more often exclusion of CSOs in general, rather than more serious repercussions against individual CSOs. 5. Few national or regional networks focus solely on TIP, but many do work related to TIP. All CSOs spoke positively of networks in their fields and believed strongly in working collaboratively on TIP. Forming effective networks as a strategy for advocacy proved challenging, however.

Only one country, Thailand, has a CSO network dedicated to TIP – called the Anti-Trafficking Network. This network is by invitation only, and includes a select group of CSOs that handle trafficking cases. It engages in joint advocacy efforts including writing and presenting joint statements and sitting on other panels. Cambodia has a network which addresses forced labor and trafficking, but this network is principally for information sharing. Laos, Indonesia, and Myanmar do not have networks on TIP, although CSOs meet through other mechanisms. For example, in Laos a network coordinated by UNACT is an opportunity to meet with CSOs and international NGOs to discuss cases and policy developments. In Thailand, Indonesia and Cambodia, CSOs also meet each other and share information by attending government interagency meetings. Indonesia has networks on may related social issues which sometimes address TIP indirectly.

Interviewees described numerous challenges to building strong and effective networks that can offer a collective voice to governments on TIP policy and implementation. These challenges included:

• Networks are unclear in their goals, and CSOs do not see direct benefit in participating; • Each CSO has its own area of work and priorities, thus finding issues of common importance can be difficult; • CSOs change staff or send different staff members to network meetings which can reduce cohesion and mean that not all participants are at the same level; • Network participation, especially if work is expected of members outside of meetings, can be a drain on human and financial resources, sometimes without benefit; • Networks tend not to have independent funding and thus are coordinated by CSOs members. This can limit the effectiveness of the coordination, especially for advocacy. 6. CSOs in ASEAN are interested in regional advocacy but few are directly involved. No CSOs are working on ACTIP at present. In general, the interviewees were skeptical of the value of ASEAN processes for creating change on the ground. They described ASEAN as “bureaucratic”, “opaque” or “non-transparent” for example noting that the ASEAN secretariat provides little information on dates or locations of upcoming meetings available. One regional network recalled the great hope for ASEAN after it agreed the Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers in 2007, but the disappointment of many when no formal implementation instrument had been agreed more than ten years later.

One representative of a CSO who works on children also noted that they are pulling back from regional advocacy around TIP because they perceive the anti-trafficking movement to have shifted from protection of vulnerable groups (such as children) to a focus on slavery and forced labor. This,

84 | P a g e

they perceived, had been initiated by donors, but she was concerned this approach left out the specific needs and vulnerabilities of child victims of trafficking.

Nevertheless, despite these misgivings, some strong regional advocacy is taking place. CSOs are coordinating around input into the draft ASEAN framework instrument on migrant workers. Their efforts have included coordinating in-person meetings by groups of CSO representatives to the country representative offices in Jakarta, and developing a joint statement. The CSOs are calling for a binding regional instrument, and have been working with individual ASEAN governments to build support for this model. As yet, only Indonesia is supportive.

CSOs also believed that having a civil society presence at ASEAN was important in principle and that they would be interested to learn more about how to engage with ASEAN. Some CSOs are also engaged in the COMMIT process, and noted that this is the first year CSO’s have had a presence at COMMIT and thus this would be a useful process to follow.

On ACTIP specifically, CSOs were not involved in the drafting and perceived a gap in their understanding of the Convention and what it would mean for their own countries, potential for using ACTIP to change national law, policy and implementation, and opportunities to engage. Two noted that the Convention had been drafted in virtual secrecy by the security ministries of the ASEAN governments, and so they were waiting to see if it would be implemented in a rights-based manner. Several CSOs requested leadership from GAATW on ACTIP, starting with a training on the Convention.

Other regional processes presented as opportunities were the ASEAN Commission on Human Rights, and the Bali Process, which is focused on trafficking but has very little civil society presence. CSOs also described cross-border work with an advocacy component. For example, CSOs in Laos and Cambodia are working on a Memorandum of Understanding with China on identification and repatriation of women trafficked to China for marriage; Cambodian, Laos, and Burmese CSOs were working with CSOs in Thailand and monitoring especially the Thai government crackdown on undocumented workers that was sending numerous workers, some of whom had been trafficked, back to their origin countries without screening and identification for trafficking. 7. CSOs use many strategies for achieving social change. As noted earlier, few of the CSOs were exclusive advocacy organizations, and most prioritized other strategies for achieving social change.

Common strategies that emerged during the interviews included:

Legal representation: representing trafficked persons in civil cases, and supporting victims through criminal prosecution of traffickers (or of the victims in criminal defamation cases) was a key strategy for around a third of the CSOs. Legal representation was described as not only a way of assisting individuals obtain a remedy for harm suffered, but also a strategy of empowerment of individuals and their families and for training frontline officers on their responsibilities.

Grassroots activism, organizing and training: Some CSOs work at the community level to “raise consciousness” and empower individuals with information and a sense of solidarity. This was considered a form of trafficking prevention.

Training of and coordination with law enforcement officials: some organizations, favoring a more “inside” approach, train and partner with frontline immigration, border control and police officers on victim identification, referral to services, protecting the rights of trafficked persons, and providing information and training in shelters for trafficked persons. This was described as a form of in-person advocacy to gradually change the beliefs and behaviors of law enforcement officers.

85 | P a g e

Research: CSOs carry out research with affected communities and use the research to develop programs at the community level, as well as providing case studies and recommendations to government officials and the media. Four CSOs favor participatory action research that engages the research subjects in the research and is thus also a tool of empowerment and education. 8. CSOs perceive their capacity to do advocacy work limited in respect to funding, conceptual clarity regarding TIP, and ability to develop advocacy strategies. Towards the end of the interview, interviewees were asked to describe their sense of their CSO’s capacity to do advocacy work, especially at the regional level, and to identify any interventions that would strengthen their capacity. CSO representatives felt confident in their understanding of trafficking issues on the ground and what needed to change at the national level. However, three clear capacity gaps emerged:

Lack of funding for advocacy work, and for TIP work more broadly: CSOs in Cambodia, Thailand and Indonesia perceived that funding for work on TIP had declined and donors’ interests had shifted to specific TIP issues, such as trafficking into the fishing industry, or to related issues such as migration. Accordingly, TIP programs had closed, networks had become defunct or less active, and the advocacy was done within funded projects rather than on an organizational/issue basis. Several CSOs explained that advocacy is expensive in that it requires not only attending meetings, but also organizing and coordinating other stakeholders in preparation for meetings, and publishing materials.

“Silo-ing” of TIP work and lack of broad conceptual clarity: The interviewees perceived that TIP work had become more siloed over the years, with each CSO focusing on a specific form of trafficking and no one CSO having a complete view of all sectors, trafficked persons or kinds of trafficking. Those working with women and children in the sex industry, those working on child sexual exploitation, and those working on trafficking of men into the fishing industry, for example, do not necessary attend the same meetings. The sectors of interest also shifted according to donor priorities. Accordingly, some CSOs expressed a lack of clarity about TIP, and the boundaries between TIP, migration, labor exploitation, and other related issues.

Lack of training on advocacy planning: Interviewees from legal aid and direct assistance CSOs, or whose advocacy work had declined over the years, expressed uncertainty about the process of doing advocacy. Specifically, they requested training and coordination on developing advocacy goals, and working strategically with other partners. 9. Conclusion: Opportunities for Strengthening Policy Advocacy, and Suggestions for Ways Forward Enthusiasm to Engage Although none of the CSO participants are currently doing advocacy work on ACTIP, many were curious and enthusiastic to know more. Discussions with the CSO representatives in all five countries also revealed an enthusiasm to do more coordinated advocacy work on TIP at both national and regional levels as all believed that trafficking is a growing problem that is receiving declining attention from donors and some governments. CSO colleagues also pointed out that although donors and Governments tended to keep trafficking, migration and labour in separate boxes, in reality all three are interconnected and any regional level advocacy must begin by building cross movement alliances. In some interviews, the questions themselves prompted reflection in the interviewees about the possibilities for re-engaging on policy advocacy around TIP and other related issues. Ideas for future engagement included:

86 | P a g e

• Extending this landscape mapping to other ASEAN countries and including insights of colleagues from migrant rights, women’s rights and labor rights movements on ASEAN level advocacy • Organizing an ASEAN regional meeting of CSOs to discuss ACTIP, understand the contents, strategize on implications for national law and policy, and brainstorm ways to move forward; • Including selected colleagues from the migrant rights and labor rights movements in such a meeting so that CSOs can learn from strategies of colleagues in other movements • Conducting a collective people’s review of implementation of on a specific aspect of TIP interventions such as prevention or assistance at national levels; • Developing strategic advocacy plans around TIP at organizational and network levels in which the CSO could identify priorities for reform and then a plan to seek those reforms; • Creation of a sub-regional (ASEAN) network on TIP, to keep CSOs up-to-date with regional events, opportunities and outcomes. Suggested Ways Forward Future steps would depend on the goal and objectives of the USAID ASIA CTIP project. If one of the key objectives is to work with CSOs and create a space for policy discussion and collaborative advocacy at regional level future steps could include: - Inclusion of other ASEAN countries to identify CSOs working around the region, namely: the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore. - A deeper analysis of CSO led collaborative policy advocacy on related issues in ASEAN, including understanding coordination, how advocacy agendas are planned, and what makes such initiatives successful. - Developing a feasible, consultative, collaborative and strategic advocacy plan with CSOs and supporting the implementation of the plan;

87 | P a g e

List of Participating CSOs

ORGANIZATION Cambodia Cambodia Against Child Trafficking (ACT) Cambodia Women’s Crisis Center Legal Services for Women and Children Winrock International Cambodia Office Women’s Network for Unity Indonesia ECPAT Indonesia Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) Institut Perempuan LRC-KJHAM Migrant Care Serikat Buruh Migran Indonesia (SBMI) Solidaritas Perempuan (SP)

Laos Association for Development of Women and Legal Education (ADWLE) Sengsavang Village Focus International Myanmar Burmese Women’s Union Karuna Mission Social Service (KMSS) - Caritas Myanmar Foundation for Education and Development Labour Rights Defenders and Promoters Migrant Worker Rights Network (MWRN)

Thailand Alliance Anti-Traffic Thailand Empower Foundation Fortify Rights Foundation for Women Human Rights and Development Foundation Labour Rights Promotion Network International/Regional Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women ECPAT International Mekong Migration Network (MMN)

88 | P a g e

ANNEX VI: Legal Impact Hub: Law Firms & Attorney Partners

Name Country Specialty Independent specialist attorneys focused specifically on trafficking, exploitation and human rights SR Law Thailand Human Trafficking Human Rights Lawyers Association Thailand Human rights and human trafficking Global Diligence International Public International Law Cohen Milstein US Human Trafficking Pro Bono Leigh Day UK Human Rights and Personal Injury Global and regional legal firms that provide deep and rich legal resources that may include employment, corporate and industry governance expertise Akin Gump International Multiple Practice Areas Allen and Overy International Multiple Practice Areas Clifford Chance International Multiple Practice Areas Ashurst International Multiple Practice Areas Jones Day International Multiple Practice Areas * Ropes and Gray International Multiple Practice Areas * Linklaters International Multiple Practice Areas White and Case International Multiple Practice Areas * K&L Gates International Multiple Practice Areas * Tilleke and Gibbins Thailand and regional Multiple Practice Areas * Herbert Smith Freehils International Multiple Practice Areas * Morgan Lewis International Multiple Practice Areas DFDL Regional Multiple Practice Areas * Hogan Lovells International Multiple Practice Areas Skrine Malaysia Corporate Commercial King, Wood and Mallesons International Multiple Practice Areas Latham and Watkins International Multiple Practice Areas Bun and Associates Cambodia Corporate and Commercial Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Singapore Criminal Law WCP Thailand Corporate Commercial

• Indicates those firms that are very experienced in supporting human trafficking work and many of them have a human trafficking task force that works on a global level. It is quite common for many firms such as Ropes and Gray and Herbert Smith to develop expertise in the area of corporate accountability and business/human rights, supply chain liabilities etc.

Note: It must be recognized that there is currently a very limited number of trafficking, exploitation and human rights attorneys and the Hub seeks to help develop this number through sharing resources, training and community. Considering the current extent of these specialist resources, but also recognizing the importance of other areas of law (employment, corporate, banking, industry governance, etc), LA must ensure the Hub has active support from large global and regional firms. This then gives the Hub community a wide range of subject matter experts with an increasing number of providers. Furthermore, most global and regional law firm partners already have experience supporting counter-trafficking projects and are very committed to the issue. It is fairly common for some of the global parent firms to have an anti-trafficking panel of lawyers to better support initiatives such as ours.

89 | P a g e

ANNEX VII: The Mekong Club Survey Report

90 | P a g e

91 | P a g e

92 | P a g e

93 | P a g e

94 | P a g e

95 | P a g e

96 | P a g e

97 | P a g e

98 | P a g e

99 | P a g e

100 | P a g e

101 | P a g e

102 | P a g e

103 | P a g e

104 | P a g e

105 | P a g e

106 | P a g e

107 | P a g e

ANNEX VIII M&E Areas of Technical Assistance from USAID Asia CTIP to Associate Awards / Country Programs

What are the problems? In general, there are three challenges faced by USAID CTIP bilateral projects related to monitoring and evaluation:

1. M&E Plan does not adequately describe how the performance evaluation(s) and, in some cases, impact evaluation(s) will be undertaken including the key evaluation questions to be tested. 2. Some of USAID CTIP interventions have been structured in a way that makes it difficult to measure their impact (only at output/outcome level evaluation). 3. Speak the same language with external evaluator hired by USAID: clarity on deciding what is worth measuring, how do we (technically sound and politically correct) proactively engage in the evaluation process.

How USAID Asia CTIP Can Assist Bilateral Projects Impact evaluation design/preparation: Assist the bilateral project and USAID Mission to decide whether the project will need to engage impact evaluation or not through a systematic assessment to determine the “evaluability23” level of the project, for example by helping the examining the following evaluability questions24:

1. Plausibility: is it plausible to expect impact? Assessing plausibility can help to inform what elements of the intervention can be evaluated at different points in time. Depending on the extent to which gaps in intervention logic can be addressed, investing in impact evaluation may not be warranted. Instead, it may be better to focus on re-thinking and re-directing the intervention to increase its potential for effectiveness, and assessing its implementation. Verifying the logic of this on the basis of the intervention design may reveal the need to modify the intervention and/or revisit the expectations about anticipated outcomes and/or impacts. 2. Utility: would an impact evaluation be useful and used? An impact evaluation should only be undertaken when its intended use and users can be clearly identified, and when it is likely to produce useful findings. Under USAID’s learning and adaptive management principles, Clarity on the utility of impact evaluation is important because stakeholders’ needs and expectations (use of the findings) will affect the timing of the evaluation, the type of data to be collected, the way in which data are obtained and analyzed, and the strategies and channels used to present and share the findings with intended users. 3. Feasibility: is it feasible to measure impact? The feasibility of an impact evaluation is influenced by several factors. The following factors need to be understood in order to make a decision whether to proceed now or later: 1) Feasibility of measuring what is worth measuring, 2) Availability of good quality data, 3) Characteristics of the intervention, and 4) The budget size.

23 The OECD-DAC defines evaluability as ‘the extent to which an activity or project can be evaluated in a reliable and credible fashion’. It implies the use of a robust evaluation design to reduce the risk of irrelevant or invalid findings. An evaluability assessment should address three focus areas: 1) Adequacy of intervention design for what it is trying to achieve, 2) Conduciveness of the institutional context to support an appropriate evaluation, and 3) Availability and quality of information to be used in the evaluation. 24 Peersman, G., Guijt, I., and Pasanen, T. (2015) ‘Evaluability Assessment for Impact Evaluation’. A Methods Lab publication. London: Overseas Development Institute.

108 | P a g e

As most impact evaluations will be external (hired by USAID), USAID Asia CTIP may assist the bilateral project to conduct a preparatory work/design to meet impact evaluation requirements such as baselining data and selection of appropriate, cost-effective data collection methods.

Performance evaluation: Performance evaluation both self and independent-performance evaluation need to be conducted by Winrock for their own institutional learning or accountability purposes. USAID Asia CTIP may assist bilateral projects to design performance evaluations that are not only rigorous and cost effective but also learning-effective i.e. support and/or inform FM 1 learning agenda. Part of a performance evaluation is a project mid-term review. In this regard, USAID Asia CTIP can assist the bilateral project to:

- Review design and help teams provide feedback to donors and evaluators - Sit in on some of the interviews and focus groups for learning purposes as part of FMn1 (learning about CTIP M&E practices) - Advise teams on effective responses/preparation for evaluations, including highlights of the “tips and tricks” - Provide technical review on data collection methods (especially surveys) and counter analysis as needed, to validate the evaluator’s analysis. - Review draft reports with project teams and assist in providing feedback/responses - Document evaluation processes and lessons learned, including facilitating a process to write a collaborative learning brief/case study/change stories to promote evidence-based practices from bilateral project among CTIP community in the region and FM 1 evidence-based practices repository.

Special study: USAID Asia CTIP may support bilateral projects to conduct operational research to help USAID and Winrock to make better decisions through provision of updated and validated evidence. The operational research will strive to construct models that accurately represent and forecast relationships between program indicators as well as qualitative data to understand the situation or the “backstage information” of project evaluations. For instance, a special study may apply Structural Equation Modeling to explain huge numbers of interrelated variables and constraints in complex systems, and provide the implications of a particular resource allocation strategy. A special study can also be in the form of a qualitative study to complement quantitative data, and comprehend the political economy context of an initiative.

Facilitating the knowledge/learning hub: Learning about and publicizing what works and does not work is crucial for learning and adaptive management outside the project. Learning might be produced, but is not made available to broader community of practice or the general public in a way that is relevant or convincing. USAID Asia CTIP will support to identify what decision-makers and the public knows about the proposed M&E Working Group themes, and to address the knowledge gaps through information material using a variety of presentation formats. This will include the full range of USAID ASIA CTIP communication channels – web, print, events etc.

109 | P a g e

ANNEX IX: USAID Asia CTIP Key Indicators Target, baseline and life of award value

Indicator Ref. Indicator & Disaggregation Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 LOA Leader Award Goal: Asia region more effectively addresses human trafficking risks and responses that transcend borders Leader Award Purpose: Rights of vulnerable and trafficked persons in Asia protected FM1: Knowledge and Learning around TIP and CTIP Interventions Strengthened Sub FM1.1: Increased use of evidence base for USAID TIP interventions 1.1.1 Number of actions taken by USAID Asia CTIP and Number NA 20 25 25 20 90 Outcome stakeholders to support USAID Asia CTIP learning

agenda to promote evidence-based CTIP

About the indicator. One of the key strategies of USAID Asia CTIP is to strengthen learning around TIP and CTIP interventions through the facilitation of a learning ecosystem. The main platform for this ecosystem will be USAID Asia CTIP annual Summits. The Summits will inform and engage stakeholders on effective approaches to address the CTIP knowledge gap (which focuses on building the evidence base of interventions) and the CTIP utilization gap (which explores how the findings of the current research are being used for programming and what prevents research from being put into practice). A collective learning agenda is critical in this regard, for an effective learning process as it serves as a “curriculum” that helps learning ecosystem members to focus the areas of learning, for example criteria for prioritization, joint research priorities, other adaptive learning priorities, funding sources, and a plan of action to disseminate research findings for practitioner and government use. USAID Asia CTIP will contribute to the process by identifying and developing an “evidence-based learning agenda” as well as facilitating the annual Summit. Disaggregated by: 1) types of actions (agreement/endorsement of the learning agenda, individual organization action, participation in learning community joint activities), and 2) types of stakeholders (CSO, UN agency, INGO, government, regional platform). Collection method: Review of learning summit notes, partners’ reports, and interview or survey with stakeholders When: Quarterly, starting in Q1 Year 2 Baseline and target: As the learning agenda is to be developed during the Learning Summit in November 2017, report on the actions taken by stakeholders to support the learning agenda will be available in the second quarter of FY2. It is expected that the following actions will be taken by the stakeholders:

In year 2, it is estimated that there will be 20 actions by USAID Asia CTIP and stakeholders as described in the following table. Five new additional actions per year in in FY 3 and FY 4 are estimated due to a growing number of advocacy by Winrock’s partners, including by CSOs network. A decline in number of action to 20 actions is projected in the last year of the award, but with more focused on strategic actions to facilitate a smooth transition/exit strategy.

110 | P a g e

Indicator Ref. Indicator & Disaggregation Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 LOA Possible learning agenda Types of action (referring to knowledge to Estimated # of actions in FY2 practice framework) • Knowledge gap in CTIP 1. Adoption in stakeholders’ research • Local research institutes (3) research (as informed by agenda • Anti-Trafficking Review Editorial/Focus (1) NEXUS literature review); 2. Reference for CTIP • USAID CTIP Projects (6), incl. Associate • Private sector engagement intervention/program Awards models • Private sector (2) • Role of CSO in CTIP advocacy 3. Framing debates and getting issues on • CSO advocacy by GAATW and CSO network • Measurement of CTIP to the political or programmatic agenda on monitoring of ACTIP Asean (1) interventions • Bilateral or regional

cooperation 4. Testing/piloting initiatives/learning • USAID CTIP Program in 5 countries (5) including participation in learning • Private sector (2) community joint activities 1.1.2 Number of stakeholders/implementers who adopt Number NA 18 20 25 20 20 Outcome evidence-based practices identified by USAID Asia CTIP (includes mainstreaming CTIP in non-TIP interventions, policy changes, improvement/revision of TIP program planning, implementation procedures, M&E, and partnership)

111 | P a g e

Indicator Ref. Indicator & Disaggregation Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 LOA About the indicator. Force Multiplier 1 is about multiplying the effectiveness of CTIP intervention through improving the availability and use of CTIP evidence-based practices by policy makers and implementers. The project’s task in this regard is to identify EBPs and facilitate the platform for EBPs exchange and learning. This Indicator measure the outcome of these processes i.e. the use of EBPs. Anticipated debates on EBPs would be around which evidence, whose evidence matters and how we measure the influence of the evidence in policy making process, in policy and in the implementation of the policy (practices). We refer to Puddy, R. W. & Wilkins, N. (2011)25 framework on what constitute an evidence-based practice (EBP) is, i.e. a policy or activity informed by or built on the best available research evidence that is combined with the experiential evidence of field-based expertise and contextual evidence. USAID Asia CTIP will collect EBPs both in research/evaluation methodology and in CTIP interventions from the assessment/studies to be conducted by Partner organizations (literature review by NEXUS Institute, Civil Society Landscape Assessment by GAATW, Research Organization Mapping by GAATW, and Private Sector Landscape Assessment by SSG Advisors, Case Management by Liberty Asia, etc.) and case studies from USAID CTIP bilateral projects. USAID Asia CTIP in consultation with partner organizations will select key EBPs to be discussed, disseminated and promoted. Disaggregated by: 1) types of stakeholders (CSO, UN agency, USAID bilateral project, INGO, government, regional platform), and 2) types of actions to adopt (improvement/revision of CTIP program planning, mainstreaming CTIP in non-TIP interventions, policy changes, implementation procedures, M&E, and partnership) How: Review of USAID mission reports, partners’ reports, and interview or survey with stakeholders When: Quarterly, starting in Year 2.

Baseline and target: Studies/assessment by partner organizations to identify the EBPs will be completed in end of year 1 and mid of year 2. Dissemination of those EBPs will begin in mid of Year 2 and the adoption processes by stakeholder are expected to begin in the second half of Year 2. As described in the table below, there will be 18 stakeholders who are projected to adopt the EBPs in Year 2—that will serve as the baseline value. An additional of 2 new stakeholders in Y3 and 5 new stakeholders in Y4 from the CSO networks are projected to reflect the growth of the project’s influences to the stakeholders. By the end of Y5, it is estimated that there will be 20 stakeholder are reported have adopted the EBPs.

25 (Puddy, R. W. & Wilkins, N. (2011). Understanding Evidence Part 1: Best Available Research Evidence. A Guide to the Continuum of Evidence of Effectiveness. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. 112 | P a g e

Indicator Ref. Indicator & Disaggregation Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 LOA Possible EBPs How the stakeholder use the EBPs Estimated # of stakeholders adopted EBPs in FY2 • Evaluate/research methodology 1. Adoption in stakeholders’ research • Local research institutes (3) in TIP (as informed by NEXUS methodology • USAID CTIP Bilateral Projects (5), incl. literature review); Associate Awards 2. Improvement/revision of CTIP • Private sector engagement • Private sector (2) program design/implementation, • Legal case management (from including strategic litigation by legal • Freedom Collaborative including Legal Hub Liberty Asia) hub members members (5) • Measurement of CTIP 3. Adaptation of EBPs in CTIP • CSOs and implementing partners (3) interventions evaluation methodology • Doing CSO advocacy

Sub FM1.2: Improved measurement of USAID TIP interventions 1.2.1 No. of USAID Missions/USG CTIP initiatives in Asia 0 6 8 10 10 10 Yes/True Outcome regularly using agreed methods and indicators About the indicator. This indicator measures the efforts of USAID Asia CTIP in responding to one of the key learning agenda in measuring USAID CTIP interventions. USAID Asia CTIP is facilitating the establishment and management of a technical working group (M&E Working Group) as a mechanism or forum as well as a learning ecosystem for USAID CTIP interventions in Asia to seek consensus on the definition of key indicators, the methodology and mechanisms for data collection as well for collaboration, learning and adaptive management in CTIP intervention. Through the works of this working group, it is expected that USAID Mission or USG CTIP initiatives will use the same references in measuring CTIP interventions. Disaggregated by: Country (USAID Mission) How: USAID Asia CTIP M&E Working Group’s documents When: Annual, starting in Year 2. Baseline and target: In Year 2, six USAID CTIP projects in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Nepal and including USAID Asia CTIP shall use or contribute to the agreed indicators. It is expected that another two USG initiatives will use the references in Year 3 and Year 4, so by the end of project, 10 CTIP initiatives or USAID missions are projected to use the agreed indicators and methodology developed through USAID Asia CTIP M&E Working Group.

Sub FM1.3: Increased local capacity to conduct TIP M&E and research

1.3.1 Number of local researchers/research institutions Number 0 5 3 3 1 12 Outcome producing peer-reviewed TIP-related research or

evaluation reports

113 | P a g e

Indicator Ref. Indicator & Disaggregation Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 LOA About the indicator. This indicator measures the materialization of the capacity building inputs provided to research organizations in the form of quality research products. While the outputs (number of researchers trained/mentored in research methodology, etc.) are relatively measurable26, the measurement of the outcomes i.e. better research quality is challenging due to its rich dimensions of research quality. Depending on its perspective, what we mean by research quality varies, from its academic rigor dimension to its pragmatic dimension; from positivistic perspective to critical theory paradigm, including feminists perspective as well as the issue on trust and transparency in research. This indicator uses a peer reviewed article as the standard for quality as the program, because through rounds of review, flawed ideas are eliminated and good ideas are strengthened and improved. Peer reviewing also ensures that science is relatively independent. However, despite the undoubted strengths, USAID Asia CTIP Project acknowledge the debates about the efficacy and legitimacy of the peer review process as it involves a number of social interactions that might create biases. GAATW will also assist local researchers in distilling their results into articles they can submit to its Anti-Trafficking Review, a peer-reviewed, open access academic journal with a readership in 78 countries. Disaggregated by: Country How: Review of GAATW’s report When: Quarterly, starting in Q4 Year 2. Baseline and target: The identification of potential research organizations and setting up the selection processes will be completed in Year 1 and the capacity development activities will start in Q1 Year 2. It is expected that after six months of capacity development processes with the researchers, by the end of Year 2, five research organizations (research grantees) will be able to produce their research products through the peer-review process to be facilitated by GAATW. Every year later, until Year 5, it is projected that 3 new researchers or research organizations will be able to produce the peer-reviewed research or evaluation reports on TIP. FM 2: Improved coordination and cooperation between source, transit and destination countries

Sub FM 2.1: Practical implementation of regional and bilateral frameworks 2.1.1 Number of policies, procedures, protocols, agreement, or Number 0 2 2 3 3 10 Outcome commitment for improving CTIP planning, implementation and monitoring are adopted and/or strengthened (includes referral system, regional TIP identification guidelines, communication protocol, national plans of action on business and human rights adoption by Asian / ASEAN / SAARC, etc.)

26 Details of the output indicators such as capacity development materials, number of training, trainee, trainer, mentorheip events etc. will be documented by GAATW, the implementing partner. 114 | P a g e

About the indicator. This indicator measures the outcome of USAID Asia CTIP efforts in supporting ASEAN and SAARC members to address policy-related discrepancies on regional implementation of the TIP Convention, identifying, referring, and supporting trafficking survivors, communication protocols and other necessary policy gaps identified. The results are quantified into number of policies or regulations which have been influenced by USAID Asia CTIP and partners. We use Overseas Development Institute’s framework in measuring policy influence (Tsui, Hearn, and Young, 2014) as the framework to measure our influences to policy. This may include but are not limited to: - Agreement/endorsement of the regional/bilateral action plan - New/improved regulations and/or guidelines established to enforce anti-trafficking law and/or related legislation. - Monitoring procedures are in place - Laws, policies, or procedures drafted, proposed, or adopted to promote gender equality at the regional, national, or local level - New cross-border initiatives that target specific TIP patterns Disaggregated by: Types of policies, and types of policy influence How: Review of partners’ reports When: Annual, starting in Year 2. Baseline and target: USAID PROGRESS Regional Review on Laws, Policies and Practices within ASEAN relating to the Identification, Management and Treatment of Victims of Trafficking, especially Women and Children (2016) has provided some opportunities for policy influence by USAID Asia CTIP 1. Guidelines for the identification and referral of victims of trafficking (p.44); 2. Laws and/or bilateral agreements to provide for the mutual recognition of other AMS’ victim identification procedures (p.44); 3. Referral procedures between government social services and other service providers (p.70); 4. Policy on national budget for victim protection and support (p.70); 5. Policy on the participation of foreign victims of trafficking in criminal proceedings (p.91); 6. Policy to protect the privacy of victim-witnesses (p.91); 7. Other Bilateral agreement and national policies; 8. Etc. As civil society landscape assessment and political-economy analysis to inform the advocacy strategy that includes the prioritized policy for the advocacy works will be completed by mid of Year 2, it is estimated that by the end of Year 2, we will able, at certain level, to influence 2 policies (ether at Asean level, bilateral or national level). Same target for Year 3, and will increase to 3 policies in Year 4 and Year 5.

115 | P a g e

Indicator Ref. Indicator & Disaggregation Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 LOA Sub FM 2.2 Improved information sharing among CSOs 2.2.1 Number of CSOs utilizing regional platforms/networks Number 504 750 900 1050 1200 1200 Outcome for sourcing and sharing information/innovations strengthened to improve coordination and cooperation between source, transit and destination countries About the indicator. USAID Asia CTIP engages Liberty Asia to strengthen its online platform called Freedom Collaborative to facilitate collaborative learning and deeper engagement among stakeholders on TIP-related issues. This indicator measures the outcome of a package of capacity development inputs to be provided to Freedom Collaborative in terms of utilization of Freedom Collaborative by its members and the interactions through the knowledge sharing platform. Utilization of and interactions within Freedom Collaborative may include but are not limited to: - Content of Freedom Collaborative menu, - Moderated discussions, webinars, and platform functionality; - Variation in the membership/subscriptions to key destination countries, particularly the Gulf States and East Asia (Japan, Taiwan, China); - Language capabilities to include key languages in the ASEAN region; - Research findings affecting the work of practitioners.

Disaggregated by: Types of CSOs and types of utilization How: Review of Liberty Asia’ reports When: Quarterly, starting in Year 1. Baseline and target: As of March 2017, FC reported 355 community members, that is considered as baseline value. As intensive capacity development inputs will be provided in the last quarter of Year 1 and in the first semester of Year 2, and based on the history of their annual growth that was around 10%, we estimate that at least 400 members will be registered and utilizing the platform by the end of Year 2. As this platform growing stronger and credible, every year, starting in Year 3, FC is expected to have 25 new members utilizing the services until FY 4 and will remain stable around 450 in Year 5 onward. Note: Out of 435 CSOs registered in FC in June 2017, there are 204 (or 61%) Asia-based CSOs. Out of 204 Asian CSOs, 126 CSOs are based in South-east Asia, where -50 out of them are Cambodian CSOs, and 39 are Thai CSOs). 32% (or 66) of Asian CSOs in the FC are based in South Asia where 48 out them are Indian CSOs. Only 4% (9 CSOs) are based in East Asia, where 5 of them are based in Hongkong.

116 | P a g e

Indicator Ref. Indicator & Disaggregation Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 LOA 2.2.2 Percentage of surveyed CSOs reporting increased % TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Outcome access to CTIP services by vulnerable populations Q4

About the indicator. This indicator measures how CSOs’ participation in the USG-supported knowledge sharing platform has impact on their services to their target populations. Services refer to any intervention designed to benefit vulnerable populations including trafficked persons. These can include referral system, information provision services, medical services; legal services; psychological and psychosocial care; shelter and rehabilitation; food and clothing; formal and informal education; vocational training; life skills training; return and reintegration assistance; remedies, and other rehabilitation and recovery services. This is a self-reported data through a survey to be managed by Liberty Asia, GAATW or USAID Asia CTIP. Disaggregated by: Types of CSOs and CSO’s location How: Web-based survey When: Annual, beginning in last quarter of Year 1 Baseline and target: An annual survey is going to be managed by USAID Asia CTIP in collaboration with Liberty Asia, GAATW and USAID CTIP Bilateral Projects starting in the last quarter of Year 1 that will serve as the baseline value. Projected annual increase for Year 2-5 will be developed in Q2 Year 2 after the baseline survey is completed.

FM 3: Reduced incentives for trafficking in persons through private sector engagement

Sub FM 3.1: Increased private sector action to reduce TIP 3.1.1 Number of actions by private sector to reduce risks in Number 2 36 40 40 40 40 Outcome TIP

117 | P a g e

Indicator Ref. Indicator & Disaggregation Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 LOA About the indicator. A series of activities to engage private sector leadership, starting from the Private Sector Engagement Landscape Assessment, outreach and coaching to improve their understanding of trafficking risks in their business models, B2B mentoring model (between leaders and laggards etc.) are expected to produce result in private sector actions. This indicator measures the outcome of those planned private sector engagement activities to reduce the risks of TIP in their sector, that may include but are not limited to: - Participate in sector-focused working groups established to improve labor rights and reduce risk for TIP, incl. data sharing mechanism related supply chain and TIP flows - Anti-TIP policies (specific anti-human trafficking policy, human rights policy, codes of conduct etc.) - Improvement of business operation process towards respecting human rights (recruitment policy, respect for worker’s rights – e.g. ability to form unions, grievance mechanism and audits for TIP etc.) Disaggregated by: Sector and types of action How: FM 3 partners’ reports When: Quarterly, beginning in last quarter of Year 1 Baseline and target: Private sector landscape assessment (PSLA) will provide the baseline value, which targets two companies to be engaged to adopt standards for protection of workers’ rights or to participate in multi-stakeholder platforms for labor rights, as the initial action/response and then willing to examine their own supply chain and then take follow up action. Significant increase (at least 36 companies) is projected will happen in Year 2 as the intensity of the engagement activities will be increased. This may include commitment by companies participated in The Mekong Club working group and development of CTIP tools, Liberty Asia outreach (e.g. banks utilizing human trafficking due diligence measures), and companies participating in PSLA and partnership engagement (SSG Advisors).

3.1.2 Percentage of workers in target sectors reporting enhanced % NA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Outcome experience in rights protections Q4

About the indicator. This is the impact indicator of private sector engagement. Any actions taken by private sector as a response to our inputs --both disrupting or giving incentives/capacity--should be triangulated with workers’ experience. This indicator measures subjective experience of the workers related to protection of their rights. The details of the workers’ rights will be elaborated in the questionnaires. The numerator is number of respondents reporting enhanced experience in rights protections and the denominator is total respondents in the survey Disaggregated by: Sector (Construction, Agriculture, Aquaculture, Domestic work) and respondents’ characteristics (Age group, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sex, social caste, disability (if any) etc.) How: Survey (combining web-based, social media and face to face)

118 | P a g e

Indicator Ref. Indicator & Disaggregation Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 LOA When: Annual, beginning in last quarter of Year 2. Survey to workers will only be possible to be conducted as Year 1 and the first semester of Year 2 are focused on building the partnership and trust with private sector and to provide access to workers. Directly working with workers in Year 1/early Year 2 while the engagement with private sector is underway may disrupt the trust/partnership building. Baseline and target: An annual survey is going to be managed by USAID Asia CTIP in collaboration with FM 3 partners (SSG Advisors, Liberty Asia, and TMC) and USAID CTIP Bilateral Projects starting in the last quarter of Year 2 that will serve as the baseline value. Projected annual increase for Year 2-5 will be developed in Q2 Year 2 after the baseline survey is completed.

Sub FM 3.2: Increased consumer awareness and actions to reduce TIP

3.2.1 Percentage of surveyed consumers/employers indicating % NA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Outcome behavior changes because of concerns about TIP Q4/Y2

About the indicator. This is the impact indicator for a package of interventions to increase consumer awareness that will be assessed in the form of reported behavior change by the consumer because of concerns about TIP. In the consumer survey questionnaire, we will explore different types of behavior as manifestation of increased awareness about goods and services produced by TIP other than decreased demand. The numerator is number of respondent reported behavior change and the denominator is total respondents in the survey. For a triangulation, the survey data need to be verified with hard evidence such as decreased in sales or class of action by consumer, etc. Disaggregated by: Sector (Construction, Agriculture, Aquaculture, Domestic work) and respondents’ characteristics (Age group, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sex, social caste, disability (if any) etc.) How: Survey (combining web-based, social media and face to face) When: Annual, beginning in last quarter of Year 2. Survey to workers will only be possible to be conducted as Year 1 and the first semester of Year 2 are focused on building the partnership and trust with private sector and to provide access to workers. Directly working on public/consumer awareness/campaign in Year 1/early Year 2 while at the same time doing the engagement with private may disrupt the trust/partnership building. Baseline and target: An annual survey is going to be managed by USAID Asia CTIP in collaboration with FM 3 partners (SSG Advisors, Liberty Asia, and TMC) and USAID CTIP Bilateral Projects starting in the last quarter of Year 2 that will serve as the baseline value. Projected annual increase for Year 2-5 will be developed in Q2 Year 2 after the baseline survey is completed.

119 | P a g e