New study sheds light on the effectiveness of measures to solve the 'migration crisis'

(Press-News.org) Migration agreements between “transit countries”, such as Turkey or Libya, and Europe have in recent years become the norm as emergency measures to try to stop irregular migration. In 2024, for example, Egypt received over 5 billion euros to improve its border security measures. This kind of initiatives follow as a model the agreement signed in 2016 between the European Union and Turkey to prevent refugees and migrants from entering the EU: the main narrative is that such deals help to reduce overall irregular migration to Europe.

A new study by researchers at IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca analyzed for the first time with in-depth quantitative methods the effects and impact of this landmark EU-Turkey Statement. On the basis of this research, it appears that the deal the European Union established with Turkey in 2016 not only did not work to diminish the phenomenon, but also produced, as unintended consequences, an increase of irregular migration on alternative routes and of the mortality of migrants.

In March 2016, the EU and Turkey formalized a statement intended to reduce irregular entries into Greece by strengthening border security and returning irregular migrants from Turkey. The EU-Turkey deal, created as a strategic response to the migration crisis of 2015, committed Turkey to take back all irregular migrants who entered Greece, while the EU pledged to resettle one Syrian refugee to the EU for every person sent back (the so-called “1:1 mechanism”). In addition, the EU also committed 6 billion euros in financial aid to support refugee-hosting efforts, accelerated visa liberalization promises, and revived accession talks. 

Irene Tafani and Massimo Riccaboni, the two authors of the paper, focused their analysis on a main “counterfactual” question: What if the EU-Turkey deal were not implemented? How many migrants would have crossed borders from Turkey to Greece and all the other routes accordingly? Their research observed how the nationalities that constituted the majority of migrants crossing the Aegean Sea redistributed after the EU-Turkey agreement. They used both monthly data on irregular crossings from Frontex, the EU agency responsible for coordinating border control and migration management between member States, and fatalities from the International Organization for Migration’s Missing Migrants Project. 

The study first examined the attempted crossings from 2011 to early 2017 across five major migration routes in the Mediterranean: the Western Mediterranean, which connects ports in Algeria and Morocco with Spain; the Western African, which links the Western coast of Africa with the Canary Island; the Central Mediterranean which connects Italy and Malta with Libya, Tunisia and Egypt; the Eastern Border route, which stretches via land from Eastern Europe to Turkey; and finally the Eastern Mediterranean route which represents an important link between Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Then it compared the nationalities predominantly using the Eastern Mediterranean route prior to October 2015 (when the Joint Action Plan was presented) with control groups. The main aim of the analysis is to infer the impact of the deal on the use of different routes by different nationalities. 

From the study it emerges that between April and December 2016, approximately 2.000 migrants who would have used the Eastern Mediterranean route were redirected to the Central Mediterranean, a route associated with more dangerous sea passages and far higher mortality risks. The Central Mediterranean route’s death rate nearly doubled in the aftermath of the agreement, driven by several large-scale shipwrecks along the Libyan coast. By combining causal estimates of rerouted crossings with observed mortality rates, the study calculates a net addition of around 45 deaths attributable to the EU-Turkey Statement’s effect. The concern is that some migrants simply shifted routes rather than abandoning the journey. Since the Central Mediterranean route is considerably more perilous, on balance, the EU-Turkey Statement produced a net increase in deaths.

“Our work highlights the need for global policies. It does not make sense to conclude agreements with single countries, and targeting a single migration pathway,” says Tafani, Phd student at the IMT School and main author of the paper. “Bilateral deals without broader coordination may simply relocate migration flows, and end to push vulnerable populations toward even more dangerous routes.”

 “Our study highlights the importance of adopting an evidence-based migration policy approach in Europe based on rigorous policy impact analysis”, adds Riccaboni, professor in economics at the IMT School. “Policymakers should resist the temptation to celebrate declining arrivals in Greece without recognizing that those people have not renounced migration,” concludes Tafani. “They are simply finding alternative routes, putting their lives at greater risk in Libya’s waters”. 

END