17 December 2025 – Return diplomacy is often done behind closed doors, with very little space for actors such as CSOs and NGOs to engage with Governments on their practical experience working with returnees. Additionally, trust and long-term cooperation between countries are essential for effective return processes, yet short-term political interests often undermine these efforts.
These questions shaped a recent dissemination workshop organised under the FAiR project, which focused on how research on return diplomacy can inform advocacy by CSOs and NGOs. Titled Return Diplomacy: Lessons from Research and Potential for Advocacy, the workshop, organised by Erasmus University Rotterdam, Koç University, the University of Geneva and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development, brought together the audience typically not present at the return diplomacy negotiation table.
From policy design to implementation and monitoring gaps
The discussion centred on findings from the FAiR project and their relevance for ongoing policy debates. A recurring point was the gap between how return policies are designed and how they are implemented and evaluated. While policy frameworks often include references to human rights safeguards and standards, participants noted that monitoring still relies heavily on quantitative indicators, such as return rates, with limited attention to longer-term outcomes.
In particular, the post-return phase remains under-examined and under-monitored. Issues related to reintegration, health, family unity and access to services are rarely evaluated in a systematic way.
This narrow focus risks obscuring the practical consequences of return and limits opportunities for learning and adjustment.
Civil society between implementation and exclusion
Breakout sessions allowed CSOs and NGOs to connect with academia and link these findings to their own operational experience. Many described a disconnect between policy processes and on-the-ground realities. Although civil society actors are central to supporting returnees, they are frequently excluded from policy discussions.
“While CSOs play a critical role in supporting returnees, they are frequently excluded from policy discussions, leading to policies that fail to reflect on-the-ground realities.”
This exclusion limits the extent to which return frameworks reflect local contexts and operational constraints, and can reduce their effectiveness once implemented.
Trust, cooperation and the limits of short-term thinking
The role of trust and long-term cooperation also featured in the discussion. Effective return processes depend on sustained collaboration between countries and other return and reintegration partners, yet short-term political considerations often undermine this objective.
Participants noted that return diplomacy would benefit from greater transparency and more inclusive dialogue, both between states and with non-state actors, to support more stable and inclusive cooperation.
Bridging research, advocacy and policy
The workshop concluded with a shared emphasis on linking research, advocacy and policy more closely. For return diplomacy, this implies a shift from short-term outputs to longer-term outcomes, and from abstract frameworks to implementation realities.
Want to dive deeper? Consider these resources below:
- Report: Street-level perspectives on return cooperation and the use of quantitative performance indicators
- Working Paper: Extra-European Return Diplomacy
- Policy Brief: Return Diplomacy in Practice