Poland

Population: 38,530,725 GDP/Capita: 23,275

Index rank

130

Estimated enslaved

71,900

0.1865% of pop. enslaved

Gov't response

BB

Vulnerability

25.5

Prevalence

There are an estimated 71,900 people in modern slavery in Poland – this is equivalent to 0.1865% of the entire population

Modern slavery, particularly forced labour and forced prostitution, affects migrant populations within Poland and Polish citizens migrating overseas. Within Poland, hundreds and thousands of migrant labourers from nearby Eastern European countries1 and parts of South East Asia are vulnerable to exploitation in the construction, entertainment, catering and agricultural industries.2 While previously victims of exploitation were predominately from the former Soviet Union, there has been a shift in recent years to an increase in the number of victims from Asia.3 Polish men and women have also experienced modern slavery in the United Kingdom (UK), Italy, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands.

Many migrants work informally within Poland. In 2011 there were approximately 3000 work permits issued for Ukrainian nationals, while a total estimated number of 300,000 – 500,000 Ukrainians work in Poland.4 As undocumented migrants, these workers are vulnerable to exploitation and forced labour.5 Even those workers who do enter the country legally may also become subject to forced labour. In 2010, 58 Thai migrant workers who entered the country with work permits, for example, were made to work excessive hours, received limited food, and were not paid full wages.6 Along with their children, they are forced to beg on the streets and report their daily intake back to the trafficker.

Forced prostitution and commercial sexual exploitation of children also affects women and girls trafficked both in and out of Poland. A study of prosecutions for the crime of commercial sexual exploitation of children found that 14 children has been trafficked within Poland and one child trafficked to Germany between September 2011 and February 2012.7

Polish nationals outside the country experience exploitation by deceit. This includes men and women trapped in forced labour in Western Europe. Polish citizens have reported cases of debt bondage and forced labour in the meat-processing industry in the UK, for example, coerced to work under the threat of violence.8

Products known to be produced using modern slavery9

AgricultureMushroomProcessed food

Government response

ScoreSurvivors are supportedCriminal justiceCoordination and accountabilityAttitudes, social systems and institutionsBusiness and government
BB61.173.875500

The government of Poland has been largely reactive in responding to modern slavery in recent years.10 The current National Action Plan 2013-2015 (NAP) outlines provisions to address the most critical areas of response. This includes amending the legislation related to third-country nationals, expanding victim identification processes, setting standards for the provision of assistance to victims, and training employees of educational and care centres, NGO and consular staff on identification and assistance mechanisms. In August 2013, the government launched a new anti-trafficking website which enables victims or witnesses to lodge information about unlawful acts of exploitation.11 Importantly for 2014, the government has earmarked the equivalent of US$363,000 for the implementation of NAP activities.12 This reflects a gradual increase in State funding over recent years for programmes to combat human trafficking.

The government is beginning to respond to the issue of forced labour, as opposed to focusing its efforts on forced prostitution. While protection services are still geared towards protecting women and children who have experienced sexual exploitation,13 the government has indicated that victims of forced labour are provided with support.14 In 2010, the Penal Code was amended so that its definition of trafficking was more explicit about the inclusion of forced labour, and therefore better reflected the United Nations Trafficking Protocol of 2000.15 The small number of criminal law cases of forced labour, however, suggests that there is still low awareness of forced labour among police and labour inspectors, as well as low understanding of available mechanisms for recourse among migrant workers, particularly those working without documentation.16

Poland has made no visible attempts to work with businesses to address modern slavery. Research suggests that business people do not consider it their responsibility to eliminate forced or exploitative labour17 contributing to high levels of exploitation in this sector. Poland does, however, impose licencing regulations on private employment agencies and, by law, it is an offence for job seekers to pay an employment agency for their placement.18 In an effort to curb exploitation of Polish citizens abroad, from 2014 the Police Unit will cooperate with the Irish, English and Scottish police to prevent and address cases of forced labour.19

Vulnerability

Slavery policyHuman rightsState stabilityDiscriminationDevelopment
121.722.248.227.1

In Poland, high levels of unemployment, low socio economic status of citizens in neighbouring countries, and regional instability contribute to the vulnerability of nationals and migrants to modern slavery. Official unemployment figures have hovered around 10 percent since the end of 2012, although this has decreased since the beginning of 2014.20 Youth unemployment has increased over the same time period to nearly 30 percent.21  Increasing unemployment has led to increasing emigration flows; around two million Polish people were living abroad in 2011,22 with 654,010 Polish residing in the UK alone.23

Three quarters of the most recent emigrants are labour migrants,24 who may be vulnerable when seeking employment abroad. These Polish emigrants tend to be from rural areas and the main breadwinners of their families,25 and as such there is pressure to find work, often at the expense of basic labour conditions.

Increasing numbers of migrants from Asia26 face difficulties integrating into Polish society.27 While Poland is considered a relatively peaceful country, discrimination towards migrant workers and minorities can lead to isolation and increase in migrant vulnerability to exploitative circumstances. Coupled with a low understanding of the Polish language, migrants may have difficulties finding work, or accessing support once exploitation has occurred.

Recommendations

Government

  • Develop and implement a campaign to shift negative community and business perceptions about migrant workers and the use of cheap labour, which may be exploitative.
  • Develop and implement policies that require businesses to identify and respond to cases of forced labour in their operations and supply chains.
  • Reconfigure systems of employment related taxes, known in Polish as ZUS, so they do not need to be paid up front.
  • Continue investigations of organised crime gangs in relation to human trafficking and forced begging.
  • Conduct targeted and relevant raising awareness campaigns among migrant populations to raise awareness of access to justice.
  • Implement a systematic and comprehensive training programme for front line law enforcement on forced labour.
  • Develop a systematic and comprehensive training programme for prosecutors and judges.

Business

  • Comply with Polish law and pro-actively check to ensure workers are not paying recruitment fees to obtain a job.
  • Comply with Polish regulation and only recruit employees from registered employment agents.
  • Familiarise themselves with international labour standards, which are also enshrined in Polish Law, and introduce these standards into their Code of Conduct and supplier contracts.
“The women were told to beg together with their children. Each woman had to make between 200 and 800 Zloty (approx. 50-200 Euro) per day. If they did not bring that money back, they were beaten severely. They were begging every day and in different places, regardless of the weather conditions, mainly at churches, cemeteries and shopping malls. Every woman had to beg with a child and the organizers preferred women with disabled children. Some of the children were given medication or were beaten to remain calm.”
Account of women and children forced to beg on the streets of Rzeszow, Poland, 2013.
Expert Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk, Children Trafficked for Exploitation in Begging and Criminality: A Challenge for Law Enforcement and Child Protection, (Council of the Baltic Sea States, 2013), p.10: http://www.childcentre.info/public/Childtrafficking_begging_crime.pdf

See where Poland ranks in Europe

Learn about slavery in Pakistan, Nepal, Indonesia, or

Footnotes

  1. “Project Brief – Elimination of human  trafficking from Moldova  and Ukraine through labour  market based measures”, (International Labour Organisation, 2008), p.1 ↩
  2. As above ↩
  3. Field source ↩
  4. Zbigniew Lasocik and Łukasz Wieczorek, “Trafficking for Forced Labour in Poland- Research Report” in Trafficking for Forced Labour and Labour Exploitation (FLEX)- towards increased knowledge, cooperation and exchange of information in Estonia, Finland and Poland, Anniina Jokinen, Natalia Ollus and Kauko Aromaa (eds.) (Warsaw: Heuni, 2011), p.172, accessed 06/03/14: http://www.heuni.fi/material/attachments/heuni/reports/6KmRLQd2d/HEUNI_report_68_netti.pdf ↩
  5. “Project Brief – Elimination of human  trafficking from Moldova  and Ukraine through labour  market based measures”, (International Labour Organisation, 2008), p.1. ↩

  6. Regionally organised crime syndicates are implicated in forced begging rings. Roma mothers from poor communities in Moldova and the Ukraine are offered jobs in the sales or care sectors in Poland, but have their passports confiscated upon arrival.28 Expert Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk, “Children Trafficked for Exploitation in Begging and Criminality: A Challenge for Law Enforcement and Child Protection”, (Council of the Baltic Sea States, 2013), p.10. ↩

  7. “Trafficking in Children: The problem in Poland and in the World”, (Nobody’s Children Foundation, 2012). ↩
  8. Katie Harris, “Forced labour in the UK: ‘There was no escape. I lived every day in fear”, The Guardian, November 21, 2013, accessed 08/08/14: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/forced-labour-uk-escape-fear-polish-migrant ↩
  9. Joanna Filipowicz, Zbigniew Lasocik and Łukasz Wieczorek, ”Susceptible economic sectors and assistance structures for victims of forced labour”, (Warsaw University, 2014), pp. 21 and 29. ↩
  10. Field source ↩
  11. See: http://www.handelludzmi.eu/hl ↩
  12. National Consulting and Intervention Centre for the Victims of Trafficking, “National Action Plan Against Trafficking in Human Beings 2013-2015″ (2013): pp. 6-7, accessed 11/03/2014 http://www.kcik.pl/en/doc/POLAND_NAP_2013-2015__EN_.pdf ↩
  13. Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, “Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Poland”, (Council of Europe, 2013), p. 38, accessed 10/03/14: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/trafficking/Docs/Reports/GRETA_2013_6_FGR_POL_with_comments_en.pdf ↩
  14. Government of Poland, “Progress Report”, (Walk Free Foundation, 2014), accessed 01/09/14: www.globalslaveryindex.org/country/poland ↩
  15. The penal code was amended with the addition of ‘at work or in service of a compulsory nature, begging, slavery…’. In Zbigniew Lasocik & Łukasz Wieczorek, “Trafficking for Forced Labour in Poland – Research Report” (Human Trafficking Studies Centre, Warsaw University, 2010) p. 22. ↩
  16. Zbigniew Lasocik & Łukasz Wieczorek, “Trafficking for Forced Labour in Poland – Research Report” (Human Trafficking Studies Centre, Warsaw University, 2010) pp. 68-72. ↩
  17. Zbigniew Lasocik, E. Rekosz-Cebula, Łukasz Wieczorek, ”Handel ludźmi do pracy przymusowej: mechanizmy powstawania i efektywne zapobieganie”, (Council of the Baltic Sea States, 2014), pp. 45-47. ↩
  18.  Government of Poland, Article 85/2 item 7 and Article 121/2, Journal of Laws 2004, No. 99, item 1001,”Act of 20 April 2004- Promotion of Employment and Labour Market Institutions” [”ustawy z dnia 20 kwietnia 2004 r. o promocji zatrudnienia i instytucjach rynku pracy”] ↩
  19. Field source ↩
  20. Unemployment rate as a percentage of the labour force. Labour force is the total number of people unemployed and employed aged 15 to 74. Seasonally adjusted. In “Harmonised unemployment rate by sex”, accessed 02/09/14: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=teilm020&tableSelection=1&plugin=1 ↩
  21. Youth unemployment rate is the number of unemployed people aged 15 to 24 as a percentage of the active population of the same age. In “Youth unemployment rate- %of active population in the same age group”, accessed 02/09/14: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tipslm80&plugin=0 ↩
  22. International Migration Outlook, “Country notes: Recent changes in migration movements and policies”, (OECD, 2013), accessed 08/08/14: http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/POLAND.pdf ↩
  23. The Migration Observatory, “Migration Flows of A8 and other EU Migrants to and from the UK”, (University of Oxford, 2014), accessed 02/09/14: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-flows-a8-and-other-eu-migrants-and-uk ↩
  24. International Migration Outlook, “Country notes: Recent changes in migration movements and policies”, (OECD 2013), accessed: 08/08/14: http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/POLAND.pdf ↩
  25. Zbigniew Lasocik & Łukasz Wieczorek, “Trafficking for Forced Labour in Poland- Research Report” in Trafficking for Forced Labour and Labour Exploitation (FLEX)- towards increased knowledge, cooperation and exchange of information in Estonia, Finland and Poland, Anniina Jokinen, Natalia Ollus and Kauko Aromaa (eds.) (Warsaw: Heuni, 2011), p.199, accessed 06/03/14: http://www.heuni.fi/material/attachments/heuni/reports/6KmRLQd2d/HEUNI_report_68_netti.pdf ↩
  26. Field source ↩
  27. Zbigniew Lasocik & Łukasz Wieczorek, “Trafficking for Forced Labour in Poland- Research Report” in Trafficking for Forced Labour and Labour Exploitation (FLEX)- towards increased knowledge, cooperation and exchange of information in Estonia, Finland and Poland, Anniina Jokinen, Natalia Ollus and Kauko Aromaa (eds.) (Warsaw: Heuni, 2011), p.199, accessed 06/03/14: http://www.heuni.fi/material/attachments/heuni/reports/6KmRLQd2d/HEUNI_report_68_netti.pdf ↩

Other reports

Country briefs

View detailed country briefs that describe the nature of problem, government responses, and action needed to address modern slavery in 32 countries.

Country results

View the prevalence, vulnerability and government response data of each country.

Regional profiles

View regional trends in:

Get the full report

Download the report
Survivors are identified, supported to exit and remain out of modern slavery
Criminal justice mechanisms address modern slavery
Coordination and accountability mechanisms for the central government are in place
Attitudes, social systems and institutions that enable modern slavery are addressed
Businesses and governments through their public procurement stop sourcing goods and services that use modern slavery

Government response rating: AAA

Numerical range: 59 to 64

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of AAA are as follows:
The government has an implemented an effective and comprehensive response to all forms of modern slavery, with effective emergency and long-term reintegration victim support services, a strong criminal justice framework, high levels of coordination and collaboration, measures to address all forms of vulnerability, and strong government procurement policies and legislation to ensure that slavery is not present in business supply chains. There is no evidence of criminalisation or deportation of victims.

Government response rating: AA

Numerical range: 53 to 58

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of AA are as follows:
The government has implemented a comprehensive response to most forms of modern slavery, with strong victim support services, a robust criminal justice framework, demonstrated coordination and collaboration, measures to address vulnerability, and government procurement guidelines and/or supply chain policies or legislation to ensure that slavery is not present in business supply chains.

Government response rating: A

Numerical range: 47 to 52

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of A are as follows:
The government has implemented key components of a holistic response to some forms of modern slavery, with strong victim support services, a strong criminal justice framework, demonstrated coordination and collaboration, measures to address vulnerability, and may have taken action to ensure that government procurement policies do not encourage slavery.

Government response rating: BBB

Numerical range: 41 to 46

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of BBB are as follows:
The government has implemented key components of a holistic response to modern slavery, with victim support services, a strong criminal justice response, evidence of coordination and collaboration, and protections in place for vulnerable populations. Governments may be beginning to address slavery in supply chains of government procurement, or of businesses operating within their territory. There may be evidence that some government policies and practices may criminalise and/or cause victims to be deported.

Government response rating: BB

Numerical range: 35 to 40

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of BB are as follows:
The government has introduced a response to modern slavery, which includes short term victim support services, a criminal justice framework that criminalises some forms of modern slavery, a body to coordinate the response, and protections for those vulnerable to modern slavery.There may be evidence that some government policies and practices may criminalise and/or cause victims to be deported, and/or facilitate slavery.

Government response rating: B

Numerical range: 29 to 34

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of B are as follows:
The government has introduced a response to modern slavery, with limited victim support services, a criminal justice framework that criminalises some forms of modern slavery, (or has recently amended inadequate legislation and policies), a body or mechanisms that coordinate the response, and has policies that provide some protection for those vulnerable to modern slavery. There is evidence that some government policies and practices may criminalise and/or deport victims, and/or facilitate slavery. Services may be provided by International Organisations (IOs)/ NGOs with international funding, sometimes with government monetary or in-kind support.

Government response rating: CCC

Numerical range: 23 to 28

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of CCC are as follows:
The government has a response to modern slavery, with limited victim support services, a criminal justice framework that criminalises some forms of modern slavery, has a national action plan and/or national coordination body, and has policies that provide some protections for those vulnerable to modern slavery. There is evidence that some government policies and practices may criminalise and/or deport victims, and/ or facilitate slavery. Services may be largely provided by IOs/NGOs with international funding, with limited government funding or in-kind support.

Government response rating: CC

Numerical range: 17 to 22

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of CC are as follows:
The government has a limited response to modern slavery, with largely basic victim support services, a limited criminal justice framework, limited coordination or collaboration mechanism, and few protections for those vulnerable to modern slavery.There may be evidence that some government policies and practices facilitate slavery. Services are largely provided by IOs/NGOs with limited government funding or in-kind support.

Government response rating: C

Numerical range: 11 to 16

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of C are as follows:
The government response to modern slavery is inadequate, with limited and/or few victim support services, a weak criminal justice framework, weak coordination or collaboration, while little is being done to address vulnerability.There are government practices and policies that facilitate slavery. Services, where available, are largely provided by IOs/NGOs with little government funding or in-kind support.

Government response rating: D

Numerical range: <0 to 10

The general characteristics of a country that has received a rating of D are as follows:
The government has a wholly inadequate response to modern slavery, and/ or there is evidence of government sanctioned modern slavery. However, countries in this category may be experiencing high levels of poverty and internal conflict that may prevent, or hinder a response to modern slavery.

How to interpret Ratings

The table below shows the prevalence of slavery, based on the percentage of the population enslaved and the estimated number of people enslaved by Country. The table can be sorted by clicking on the column title or the arrows. The colour scheme (see legend below) used in the bar charts also indicate if the number is relatively high to low. In order to see more detailed information about a country, you can click on the country’s name.

Ratings Legend

prevalence-colour-legend

How did we measure Prevalence?

Measuring modern slavery is a very difficult undertaking due to the hidden nature of the crime. Surveys represent the most accurate method for estimating the numbers of people enslaved. This year, the Walk Free Foundation commissioned Gallup Inc. to conduct nationally representative, random-sample surveys in seven countries: Nepal, Indonesia, Brazil, Ethiopia, Russia, Pakistan, and Nigeria. The results from these surveys were considered alongside data from other pre-existing surveys and a review of secondary sources for 58 countries. Data from a total of 19 countries was obtained from random sample surveys, including the seven Gallup survey countries. An extrapolation method was developed for the remaining countries that took into account factors including vulnerability, geography, and country context to produce an appropriate multiplier. The preliminary prevalence estimates were then reviewed against secondary source estimates and qualitative information collated for 58 countries. Final country level adjustments were made to specific countries where deemed appropriate, in particular for Small Island Developing States.

To learn more about how we estimated prevalence, click here.

How to interpret Government Response

The Aster plot graph below indicates a government’s response to slavery. Each wedge in the chart represents one of the five outcomes we evaluated when determining Government Response. The height of each wedge indicates the score(%). Higher values indicate stronger Government Response. Colour is also used to indicate how strong or weak a country’s response was for each outcome. The colour legend is below. Rolling over each wedge in the graph will display the score received for each outcome in our evaluation. The alphabetical depiction is a ‘rating’ of the strength of government responses to modern slavery. The highest possible rating is an AAA, and the lowest a D.

Government Response Outcomes (%)

Government Response Legend

How did we measure effective government response?

A methodology was developed to measure how well governments are responding to modern slavery in 167 countries. A team of researchers collected data 32 data points against the following five outcomes for each country:

  1. Survivors are identified, supported to exit and remain out of modern slavery;
  2. Criminal justice mechanisms address modern slavery;
  3. Coordination and accountability mechanisms for the central government are in place;
  4. Attitudes, social systems and institutions that enable modern slavery are addressed;
  5. Businesses and governments through their public procurement stop sourcing goods and services that use modern slavery.

In April 2014, the Walk Free Foundation also conducted a survey of 167 governments; information from the 39 responses were incorporated into relevant country research.

To learn more about the methodology and the rating system used to measure government response, click here.

How to interpret Government Response

In the Government Response table, each country was given a letter rating based the strength of government responses to modern slavery. The highest possible rating is an AAA, and the lowest a D. Colour is used to indicate how strong or weak a country’s response was for each of five outcomes we assessed (see the legend below). Rolling over a row will allow you to see the scores (as a %) for each outcome. Higher values indicate stronger government response. All of the columns in the table can be sorted by clicking on the column title. The order of the sort can be reversed by clicking on the title again.

Government Response Outcomes (%)

Government Response Legend

How did we measure effective government response?

A methodology was developed to measure how well governments are responding to modern slavery in 167 countries. A team of researchers collected data 31 data points against the following five outcomes for each country:

  1. Survivors are identified, supported to exit and remain out of modern slavery;
  2. Criminal justice mechanisms address modern slavery;
  3. Coordination and accountability mechanisms for the central government are in place;
  4. Attitudes, social systems and institutions that enable modern slavery are addressed;
  5. Businesses and governments through their public procurement stop sourcing goods and services that use modern slavery.

In April 2014, the Walk Free Foundation also conducted a survey of 167 governments; information from the 39 responses were incorporated into relevant country research.

To learn more about the methodology and the rating system used to measure government response, click here.

How to interpret vulnerability

The vulnerability table shows factors that put a country’s residents at risk of modern slavery. The higher the score, the more vulnerable a country’s population is to slavery. Colour is also used to indicate how vulnerable each country is by each of the 5 dimensions. The colour legend is below.

Vulnerability Dimension(%)

Vulnerability Legend

How did we measure vulnerability?

The third aim of the Global Slavery Index is to explore the contextual factors that impact the vulnerability of people in a country to modern slavery. Various sources of information were collected on 37 variables from reputable sources across five dimensions that affect vulnerability to enslavement such as:

  • National anti-slavery policies to combat modern slavery;
  • The availability of human rights protections in a country;
  • The level of economic and social development in a country;
  • The level of state stability in a country; and
  • The extent of women’s rights and levels of discrimination in a country.

The research attempts to understand the importance of these factors or drivers which may influence the context of vulnerability in countries to modern slavery.

To learn more about the methodology used to determine vulnerability, click here.

How to interpret vulnerability

In the vulnerability table, colour is used to indicate how vulnerable a country’s population is to Modern Slavery across five dimensions. (see the legend below) Rolling over a row will allow you to see the scores (as a %) that each country received. The higher the score, the more vulnerable a country’s population is to slavery. All of the columns in the table can be sorted by clicking on the column title. The order of the sort can be reversed by clicking on the title again.

Vulnerability Dimension(%)

Vulnerability Legend

How did we measure vulnerability?

The third aim of the Global Slavery Index is to explore the contextual factors that impact the vulnerability of people in a country to modern slavery. Various sources of information were collected on 37 variables from reputable sources across five dimensions that affect vulnerability to enslavement such as:

  • National anti-slavery policies to combat modern slavery;
  • The availability of human rights protections in a country;
  • The level of economic and social development in a country;
  • The level of state stability in a country; and
  • The extent of women’s rights and levels of discrimination in a country.

The research attempts to understand the importance of these factors or drivers which may influence the context of vulnerability in countries to modern slavery.

To learn more about the methodology used to determine vulnerability, click here.