I have looked into the Dutch national rapporteur as well, and from what I've been able to tell, it seems that the first couple of reports really are about getting the government used to this sort of process. It didn't appear until the third or fourth report that a true national action plan had developed there.
There is a risk to creating a national rapporteur or any other independent commission. It allows the government of the day to say, “We're waiting for the national rapporteur”, and to throw its hands up saying, “We're waiting for the data and we can't decide unless we have the data.” One of the points I made last appearance was that we need to be making measurable steps now on areas we know are already quite a serious problem.
That said, as part of a longer-term strategy, this is a very good idea. I want to emphasize that the calibre of these reports that I've seen are quite good. They don't just give statistics. They try to reflect the modus operandi of the trafficker and try to explain the needs of victims. A lot of it is qualitative as opposed to quantitative data. It actually has proven to be quite valuable.
Very briefly, while our organization was working in Cambodia, we tried to do some of the data collection that we needed to target our efforts, and even in that situation we found it was invaluable. You can have far more effective programs if you have this kind of data coming in, but those programs don't need to wait for the third or fourth report before the government can act.