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

Prevalence within Europe and Central Asia

On any given day in 2016, an estimated 3.6 million men, women, and children were living in modern slavery in Europe and Central Asia. This region had a prevalence of 3.9 people in modern slavery for every 1,000 people in the region.

When considering the forms of modern slavery, the rate of forced labour (3.6 per 1,000 people) was higher than the rate of forced marriage (0.4 per 1,000 people). The prevalence of forced marriage was the lowest of all the world’s regions. A little over a third of victims of forced labour exploitation were held in debt bondage (36 percent), with a higher proportion of men trapped through debt. The region also accounted for 14 percent of forced sexual exploitation worldwide.

Within the region, Turkmenistan, Belarus, and Macedonia are the countries with the highest prevalence of modern slavery, while Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine have the highest absolute number and account for over one-third (39 percent) of the victims in the region.

These regional figures, while important, should be interpreted cautiously given the gaps and limitations of data in key regions. For example, there are numerous reports of forced marriages in Central Asia but few surveys on the issue have been conducted there.1 This contributes to lower rates of forced marriage than may be the case in this region.

Vulnerability within Europe and Central Asia

Figure 1Regional average vulnerability scores by dimension, Europe and Central Asia

Countries in Europe and Central Asia scored consistently well on vulnerability measures across all five dimensions, which reflects the generally higher average GDP per capita for this region. Interestingly, Europe and Central Asia performed relatively poorly on the disenfranchised groups dimension of vulnerability, which may reflect increasing anxiety over the refugee and migrant crises (Figure 1). On this dimension, scores ranged from a high of 60 percent in Poland to a low of two percent in Iceland. Overall, the highest vulnerability score across all dimensions was in Turkmenistan (58 percent) and the lowest was in Denmark (one percent).

Government responses within Europe and Central Asia

While there is evident variation at the subregional level, overall the Europe and Central Asia region has the strongest response to modern slavery, scoring an average BB rating. In Europe in particular, governments are generally characterised by high levels of political will and resources. These countries also have multiple regional bodies which hold them to account and monitor their responses. For example, the European Union’s proactive approach to tackling modern slavery means that Europe leads the way in engaging with business as well as taking steps to investigate public procurement. Generally speaking, governments have improved their responses in recent years by taking more steps to strengthen their legislation, provide protective services for victims, establish coordination and accountability mechanisms, and respond to risk. Countries in Central Asia have also taken steps to tackle state-imposed forced labour in recent years, as shown by a reduction in forced labour in Tajikistan and the willingness of the government of Uzbekistan to engage with the ILO.2 More needs to be done, however, to reduce rates of forced labour in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan so that their responses prevent mass mobilisation of the population in the annual cotton harvest.

Table 3Movements in government response rating for Europe and Central Asia 2016 to 2018

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