Rethinking Return: Evidence, Rights, and the Future of Migration Governance
Return migration is one of the most contested issues in European politics — yet policymaking has long been shaped by only one side of the story. The GAPs project (2023–2026) sought to decentre this one-sided approach by bringing in the perspectives of origin and transit countries, local practitioners, civil society organisations, and migrants themselves — examining how return is really governed, and what fairer, more effective alternatives might look like.
Our research pursued four goals:
Map the legal frameworks and operational realities of return governance, and develop indicators that measure actual outcomes
Analyse what enables or blocks international cooperation on returns — including less visible South-to-South dynamics shaped by EU pressure
Centre migrants by examining their mobility aspirations, transit decisions, and lived experiences after return
Co-create evidence-based alternatives together with stakeholders across 12 countries
What We Studied
GAPs conducted one of the most comprehensive empirical studies of return migration to date.
Countries covered: Germany, Sweden, Poland, the Netherlands, Greece, Georgia, Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, Canada, and the UK
Our methods included:
170+ in-depth interviews with officials, border authorities, NGOs, international organisations, and community representatives across 11 countries
135+ interviews with migrants in transit countries — Turkey, Greece, Morocco, and Poland
A public attitudes survey of nearly 6,000 citizens across five EU countries (Germany, Greece, Poland, the Netherlands, and Sweden)
A returnee survey of 1,118 people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, and Tunisia on reintegration experiences and life after return
26 rounds of stakeholder panels in 12 countries, connecting researchers directly with policymakers, practitioners, and civil society at every stage
All findings were translated into policy-relevant formats — including country-specific and EU-level policy briefs, a governance indicator framework, and an inventory of promising practices across 12 countries.
Key Findings
"Voluntary return" is rarely truly voluntary. GAPs introduced the concept of coerced returns to capture how migrants are routinely pressured into leaving through detention, removal of services, and legal uncertainty — even when officially recorded as "voluntary."
Return systems are fragmented, informal, and poorly monitored. The return migration infrastructure — the web of institutions, technologies, and agencies that shape how returns happen in practice — operates largely through informal and undocumented procedures. This makes it difficult to monitor, hard to hold accountable, and shaped by improvisation as much as by law.
International cooperation on returns is driven by power, not partnership. Through the lens of return diplomacy, GAPs analysed 58 bilateral readmission arrangements and found that the EU's approach relies heavily on conditionality and financial leverage. This undermines long-term trust and creates human rights risks. Cooperation works best when built on genuine mutual benefit.
The publics´ attitudes about return are more nuanced than the debate suggests. A survey of nearly 6,000 citizens across five EU countries found that support for return is tied to specific circumstances, not blanket attitudes. Higher education, migrant background, personal contact, and trust all reduce support for return. Widespread dissatisfaction with migration governance does not automatically translate into support for harsher policies.
Reintegration after return is failing. Over 1,100 returnees in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, and Tunisia reported persistent hardship after return — limited access to housing, healthcare, livelihoods, and legal documentation. Where support programmes existed, they were often short-term and poorly matched to people's actual needs. Many expressed the desire to migrate again.
Alternatives to return must become central to policy, not a last resort. In the significant share of cases, return simply cannot happen — because conditions are unsafe, origin countries will not cooperate, or individuals have established lives. GAPs argues that regularisation pathways, temporary protection, and clear legal standards for people who cannot safely return are not marginal exceptions. They are a structural reality that EU and national frameworks must address seriously.
Why It Matters
GAPs engaged directly with live EU policy debates throughout the project — briefing MEPs at the European Parliament, co-organising workshops with European research projects, and contributing to a co-signed public statement on the new EU return legislation.
The evidence points consistently in one direction: the current emphasis on enforcement is not delivering effective, sustainable, or humane outcomes. Five structural problems stand out:
The gap between policy and practice is not incidental — closing it requires rights-based procedures, credible reintegration support, and cooperation built on genuine partnership
Return systems lack accountability — fragmented and inconsistent data make it nearly impossible to assess whether programmes are cost-effective or achieving their goals
International cooperation carries hidden costs — weakening procedural safeguards in the name of efficiency produces human rights trade-offs that undermine long-term credibility
Life after return is harder than policy assumes — forced or pressured return without sustained support does not produce the outcomes policymakers seek
Alternatives to return need to be structurally built in — with judicial oversight and predictable pathways out of prolonged legal uncertainty
All GAPs findings, publications, the open-access data repository, and the online course remain freely available beyond the project's lifetime — providing an enduring resource for researchers, policymakers, and civil society working on migration governance across Europe and beyond.