By Bethany Jackson, Esther Weir, Meghan Alexander, Kimberley Hutchison, Jolaade Olatunbosun, Vicky Brotherton, and Doreen Boyd , Mary Alexander

Realigning Modern Slavery and Climate Change for Equitable Governance and Action’ is part of a larger collective of research projects aiming to understand the intersections between climate change and modern slavery and generate new evidence on how policies can recognize, address and positively influence these linkages between modern slavery and climate change. This project focuses on how modern slavery and climate change can be jointly integrated in UK Government and devolved administrations' policies. This pursuit is to demonstrate how modern slavery can be ‘mainstreamed’ into climate change action, and vice versa. The project and this report are the result of collaboration between the Rights Lab (University of Nottingham), Transparentem, and International Justice Mission (IJM) UK. Context Modern slavery and climate change intersect through complex, direct and indirect pathways that span borders and propagate through interconnected human-environmental systems. Climate change can increase vulnerabilities to modern slavery through the occurrence of changing environmental conditions and slow-onset events (such as drought), or rapid-onset events, both of which can cause climate-induced displacement or longer-term migration and heighten vulnerabilities that can be exploited (both in home and receiving countries). In response to changing environmental conditions, people may be forced to enter exploitative situations or engage in exploitative activities to provide alternative livelihoods and survive. In this regard, climate change can exacerbate pre-existing risk factors for modern slavery and disproportionally affect certain groups, notably women and girls. However, climate change action may also be a driving factor. For instance, planned relocations of communities as part of adaptive, risk management approaches can also create or exacerbate vulnerabilities to modern slavery, particularly if rights and/or livelihood opportunities are limited in receiving locations. Likewise, the ‘race to net zero’ could prompt new businesses to engage in modern slavery and human rights abuses, while the loss of certain industries could create new vulnerabilities in the absence of just transitions. The intersections and cascading risks that exist between climate change and modern slavery make it paramount that the two agendas be addressed together; yet to date, these issues have largely been treated as policy silos. Research methods This research examines the policy intersections and opportunities for strengthening alignment between modern slavery and climate change through UK policies and devolved administrations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The research addresses the following questions: 1. To what extent are anti-slavery efforts currently integrated into UK Government and devolved administrations’ climate change policies? 2. How can anti-slavery actions be better aligned and integrated (if at all) into climate change policies through existing and/or new mechanisms (i.e., ‘mainstreaming’)? To address these questions, we undertook a comprehensive evidence review, alongside policy and legal analyses, both domestically and internationally to identify potential transferable lessons. This was accompanied by in-depth interviews with governance actors (n = 17) and a focus group (October 2023) with those working on modern slavery and/or climate change policies (n = 4).

Findings and recommendations Three key emerging findings were identified as part of the study. First, policy silos currently exist because of inaction, a lack of ability and willingness to incorporate combined activities in work and disconnects of scale mean activities to combine modern slavery and climate change action are further ahead in the anti-slavery sector, than the climate change space. Second, there are perceived and real barriers associated with resource and capacity strain which mean the research community should work to support governance actors and provide evidence for the development of new streams of policy action. Finally, domestic and international legislative action can be used as a baseline for combined action addressing modern slavery and climate change. For example, the inclusion of decent work within Scotland and Northern Ireland’s climate change policies demonstrates integrated policy achievements. Our findings highlight several ways through which modern slavery and climate change agendas could be more strongly aligned and strengthened through governance mechanisms. Seventeen (17) overarching recommendations are identified according to four core themes – governance, knowledge-to-action, capacity building and finance, and support, lived experience and inclusion, and have been assigned an urgency score. The urgency scoring adopts a similar approach to that used by the latest Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3) (HM Government, 2022), taking into account current levels of risks or opportunities, how this is currently being managed and the benefits of further action in the next five years. More action is needed for most recommendations, meaning that new, stronger or different government action is required over and above that already planned in the next five years. It is vital that governments step-up action to address these dual challenges simultaneously to ensure a rights-based, socially just response to climate change. Summary of recommendations Governance  G1: Strategic oversight of Greater strategic oversight is needed between the leading departments focused on modern slavery (Home Office and Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO), to include and address intersecting issues of modern slavery and climate change at domestic and international scales.  G2: Problem framing and recognition o An overarching human rights lens should be centred at the core of public policy and should be integrated across all departments (national and devolved) and their mandates.  G3: Enhanced cross-departmental collaboration of Mechanisms are needed to overcome current siloed approaches throughout the UK government and devolved administrations, including cross departmental sub-groups and establishing internal networks.  G4: Legislative change o Consider the development of new combined legislation addressing modern slavery and climate change concerns, and in the interim update current legislation to strengthen UK response to modern slavery and climate change.  G5: Alignment of Inclusion of climate change as an issue of concern in relation to modern slavery as part of the agenda pursued by the Global Commission on Modern Slavery.  G6: Intergovernmental collaboration o The UK should revive its reputation as a multi-lateral governance actor and provide international leadership around climate change and modern slavery through its role within the UN multilateral systems, the new Global Commission on Modern Slavery, through the FCDO Modern Slavery Envoy and other multi-lateral systems  (continued)   

Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham, Rights Lab, 2024. 53p.

By Sunder Katwala, Jill Rutter, and Steve Ballinger

The asylum system is failing. In 2022 a total of 45,756 people made the perilous journey across the Channel, up from 1,900 in 2019. At least 50 people have drowned or are missing, including 32 people who died when a boat capsized in November 2021. Criminal gangs are profiting from people’s desperation. Those who arrive in the UK face lengthy delays in processing their asylum applications. At the end of September 2022, just 7% of asylum applicants were processed within six months and 120,300 people were waiting for a decision on their initial application1. Unable to work while their decisions are processed, asylum seekers are left in unsuitable and expensive accommodation for months or sometimes years. This is unfair to asylum-seekers and costly to the taxpayer, with the bill for emergency hotel accommodation currently amounting to £5.6 million per day2. Moreover, the Home Office is failing to remove people whose asylum claims are refused, with just 816 voluntary and enforced removals in 2021, compared with 10,489 ten years previously3. Politicians must now prioritize reforms to build an asylum system that is controlled, well-managed and fair. The UK-Rwanda scheme is not the answer. It is wrong in principle, as it removes people without hearing their cases. It is also costly to the taxpayer and will not achieve its aims in practice. We believe, however, that there are constructive alternatives for asylum reform – measures that can secure broad consensus across parties, with civil society, and among most of the public. We propose an orderly, workable, and humane alternative reform agenda, comprised of the following elements: 1. Asylum policy should uphold Britain’s values, traditions, and international obligations to protect refugees. This means we reject proposals which violate the principles of a fair hearing for every case; or which break with the spirit and letter of our international commitments under the Refugee Convention. 2. Put in place a streamlined process to make fairer and faster asylum decisions. The Home Office should invest sufficient resources in a reformed asylum system, with a new strategy to triage initial applicants, simplify country guidance, and meet targets to make most decisions in six months. A fast-track process to refugee status for the strongest cases should also be introduced, together with a streamlined appeals procedure. 3. Hire a task force to tackle backlogs. With an individual target of processing four asylum cases each week or 100 asylum claims in six months, 1,000 temporary Home Office posts would be needed to eliminate the asylum backlog in six months, at an approximate cost of £60 million. With emergency hotel accommodation costing the Home Office £5.6 million each day in October 2022, this move would pay for itself within a fortnight, eliminating the need for hotels by freeing up dispersal accommodation. 4. Safer arrivals through a new humanitarian visa to come to the UK. This should be made available to people who have family or other close links to this country and issued in a select number of UK consulates in countries of transit. Parliament should set an annual quota for people admitted through this route, which would run alongside the UK Resettlement Scheme and community sponsorship, as well as refugee family reunion visas. 5. Adopt a policy of ‘comprehensive cooperation’ with our allies to tackle smuggling and irregular migration. The Government should seek enhanced cooperation with countries of transit and safe countries of origin. It should seek new and more comprehensive UK-France and UK-Belgium agreements, covering security, police cooperation, returns, and systems to share responsibility for people who do not qualify for asylum. The Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office should also support refugees in countries of transit such as Lebanon and Turkey, enabling them to support themselves there rather than travel across Europe. The UK Government should build on the agreement it signed with Albania in 2021 to allow the return of people who are not authorized to remain in the UK. It should also seek further return agreements with safe countries of return such as Bangladesh, Georgia, India, Nepal, and Nigeria. Safe countries of return should also be supported through the British overseas aid budget to enact programs to reduce irregular migration flows. 6. Ensure more and safer returns. The government should significantly increase the number of voluntary returns, reintroducing independent advice for those refused asylum, along with faster removals for irregular entrants whose asylum claims are refused. 7. Promote integration through ‘welcoming hubs’ that increase social contact between newcomers and receiving communities and help refugees to rebuild their lives and flourish. There is a public appetite to play a part in welcoming refugees. Faith and civil society organizations should harness this and set up local welcoming projects for asylum-seekers and refugees. More volunteers could be involved in activities such as English language conversation clubs and sports, offering advice and mentoring. Welcoming hubs should offer such community contact activities to asylum-seekers, refugees, and those on humanitarian visas, as part of a proactive approach to civic contact, integration, and citizenship. 8. Help more refugees to work. English language classes should be accessible in all parts of the UK so that refugees have the skills they need for work. Employment support should be better tailored to meet refugees’ needs and practical partnerships with employers should be strengthened. This will help more refugees to find work and enable them to make their contribution to our economy. 9. Sufficient and fairer funding to enable Home Office targets to be met rather than forgotten, through investment in an effective asylum system, reducing backlogs, and providing access to affordable English language classes in colleges. The dispersal of refugees across the UK should be based on a clear set of principles, with a fairer distribution of people and funding across regions and nations of the UK. Local authorities (and communities) should be consulted about new arrivals. 10. Stronger democratic accountability and public voice in asylum. An annual Immigration Review should be presented to Parliament, which should include a transparent review of asylum, refugee, and resettlement policy. The public should be involved in this review, through a well-organised engagement exercise that reaches people whose voices are not usually heard in consultations. Past experiences show that where communities are consulted about asylum dispersal accommodation and can ask questions, this process often unlocks public consent. The views of local communities should also contribute to this annual review and to plans to house asylum-seekers in their neighborhoods.   

London: British Future, 2023. 48p.

By Oxford Archaeology

Between 2007 and 2008 Oxford Archaeology, commissioned by English Heritage, conducted a major investigation into the crime of Nighthawking, the illegal search for and removal of antiquities from the ground by criminals using metal detectors. The scope of the survey covered all archaeological sites, not just Scheduled Monuments. The survey collected data to clarify the scale of the problem of Nighthawking and to inform strategies to combat it. The survey also looked at the sale of illicitly recovered archaeological material, both online and elsewhere, and prosecutions and convictions of ‘heritage crime’ whether under relevant heritage legislation or any other law.

Oxford, UK: Oxford Archaeology, 2009. 212p.

By S. Wittendorp, R. de Bont, J.H. de Roy van Zuijdewijn and E. Bakker.

This report offers an understanding of counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation policies in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Its emphasis is on developments following the 11 September 2001 attacks, and addresses the phenomenon referred to as jihadism. The report identifies three developments: 1) the development of counterterrorism and counterradicalisation as actual policy domains, 2) increased coordination of policy and initiatives for information-sharing, 3) unclear demarcation of the policy domain.

Leiden: Leiden University, 2017. 114p.