Oumar Bella Diallo, a 24-year-old from Guinea, returned home in July after nearly a year attempting to reach Europe, during which he faced police attacks, scams, and witnessed fellow migrants die in the desert. He is one of tens of thousands of Africans repatriated through a European Union-funded program run by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which covers flights and promises post-return support. However, many returnees report that these promises go unfulfilled, leaving them to confront trauma, debt, and family responsibilities on their own.
Despite the IOM program’s budget of $380 million between 2022 and 2025, of which 58% is earmarked for post-return assistance, migrants say the support provided is often inadequate. Diallo, for example, requested help to start a small business and for medical care for a foot injury sustained during his journey but received only a phone number for a counselor and a five-day orientation course. Other returnees report similar difficulties accessing the assistance promised.
The program, launched in 2016, repatriated over 100,000 sub-Saharan migrants from North Africa and Niger. According to the IOM, 60,000 returnees have completed tailored reintegration processes, including housing, medical aid, vocational training, and business grants. However, migrants interviewed by The Associated Press say they received little to no help, and delays are attributed to high caseloads and incomplete documentation. Experts also note a lack of transparency in how EU funds are used, with audits showing insufficient monitoring of sustainable reintegration outcomes.
The IOM program coincides with broader European efforts to deter migration, including paying African governments to intercept migrants. While these measures have reduced irregular crossings to Europe, the support provided to returnees remains inadequate due to weak social services in many home countries. Experts argue that reintegration support, access to social protection, and opportunities in local labor markets are critical yet largely missing.
For many returnees, economic hardship at home fuels continued vulnerability. Guinea, for instance, is rich in natural resources but plagued by poverty and poor governance, leaving most people without formal employment or adequate income. Diallo and fellow returnee Kabinet Kante, who attempted migration for better opportunities, report struggling to repay families who funded their journeys and facing a lack of viable job options.
Local organizations and returnees emphasize that while the IOM program extracts migrants from dangerous conditions, it cannot prevent future migration without substantial improvements in reintegration support and opportunities at home. Many returnees maintain aspirations to migrate legally to Europe, but high visa costs and low approval rates make this challenging. Experts stress that migration is a natural response to limited opportunities and inadequate support, underscoring the need for comprehensive solutions beyond mere repatriation.
