Learning from return discourses: how can civil society transform narratives into policy influence?

Returnees’ experiences and voices are too often reduced to statistics or framed through the lens of migration management, ignoring the human and structural dimensions of return and reintegration. On 2 June 2026, FAIR organised a co-construction workshop entitled “Learning from Return Discourses: How Can Civil Society Transform Narratives into Policy Influence?”, which brought together 23 civil society representatives and academics from Georgia, Iraq, Nigeria, and Turkiye to find common solutions. 

Organised online, the session explored how to bridge the gap between returnees’ lived experiences and policy-relevant advocacy, focusing on alternative discourse frameworks and safeguarding principles to ensure narratives empower rather than exploit. After a short presentation of FAiR findings, the participants were asked to collectively identify which narratives empower returnees and which reinforce exclusion and were then divided into smaller groups to answer the key question ‘How can we transform stories into policy influence?’.

From dominant to alternative discourses

Dominant policy narratives often frame return as a technical process, categorising returnees as risks, beneficiaries, or case numbers but rarely as agents of change. This approach overlooks systemic barriers and relies on standardised reintegration packages that fail to address long-term needs. The workshop identified four narratives civil society actors can use and amplify to reframe the conversation:

• Solidarity/community: Emphasises peer-to-peer support and collective responsibility, countering exclusion and shame.
• Transnational identity: Recognises returnees’ ongoing ties across borders, framing return as part of circular migration cycles.
• Development contribution: Highlights returnees as agents bringing skills and knowledge, while avoiding placing the burden of development solely on individuals.
• Government accountability: Positions reintegration as a public responsibility, requiring adequate services, institutional support, and long-term monitoring.

Safeguarding returnees’ stories: Principles for ethical advocacy

Using returnees narratives in advocacy requires careful framing to avoid exploitation, re-traumatisation, or instrumentalisation. Workshop participants co-established key principles:

• Consent and anonymity: Prioritise confidentiality, anonymity, and individual’s agency over how their stories will be used.
• Structural framing: Connect individual stories to systemic issues (e.g., policy gaps, institutional responsibility) rather than treating them as anecdotes.
• Avoid emotional exploitation: Recognise the emotional cost of sharing one’s own story and respect one’s right to silence
• Emphasis on actions: Present gaps as technical opportunities (e.g., skills support, family reunification) rather than purely emotional narratives.

Civil society in action: 3 Recommendations for policy influence

1. Partnerships and alliances: To translate narratives into policy change, participants stressed the importance of partnerships between civil society, local leaders, the media, municipal and national governments and returnees themselves. 
2. Co-produced advocacy: Participants also emphasised moving from testimony collection to co-production of narratives and policy acts, proposing that CSOs act as bridges to turn returnees’ narratives into community organising and advocacy. 
3. Collective reintegration effort: Recognising the systemic and shared responsibility for a more inclusive reintegration, they recommended integrating return and reintegration into daily civil society activities, and replacing scattered, unadapted support packages with joint approaches that reflect returnees’ needs and agency.

‘Returnees should be recognised as reintegration partners and not only beneficiaries’. 

Conclusions and way forward: aiming for more accountable and inclusive reintegration

Workshop discussions underscored the need for collaborative action to address systemic gaps. While civil society actors can uphold  the collective responsibility for reintegration and tackle negative narratives that stigmatise return, advocacy remains a critical need to address gaps at structural levels – nationally and internationally. Key asks included long-term reintegration systems that go beyond the current scattered and unadapted landscape, with reintegration support and municipal services tailored to returnee needs. Participants called for partnerships to monitor outcomes, define thresholds for sustainable reintegration, and ensure that policies reflect the lived experiences and narratives of returnees, thus prioritising their agency, stability, and inclusion over short-term political interests.