34 To achieve “sustainable return” experts tend to underscore the importance of <mark>continuous and intensive counseling, careful monitoring and research, a holistic view of individual and structural influencing factors, including the situation in the countries of origin, and close cooperation between all stakeholders within the host community as well as the returnees’ countries of origin</mark><sup>36</sup> <mark>.</mark> Even after the decision to return has been made, continuing to update information on socio‐economic conditions will help with reintegration.

Ideally, reintegration assistance should be tailored to the individual’s profile and the country of origin’s situation. It could include vocational training, education grants, etc. It is pointed out “good results have been achieved where assistance is offered to both the individual and the community to which he or she is returning”. (Harild et al. 2015) There are many reports suggesting that returnees often feel discriminated against when they return to their home countries, reinforcing the importance of counseling. (Schuster & Majidi 2013) Return to unfavorable conditions may only result in renewed attempts to emigrate.

# a) The situation in countries of origin.

The countries that are the largest source of refugees include: Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Iraq, Myanmar, and Eritrea (UNHCR, 2017). These countries account for the vast majority of refugees worldwide. We will also consider three countries in Europe that are an important source of asylum seekers in Europe, and whose recognition rate is low, and account for many returnees – these are Kosovo, Serbia and Albania. Is return possible and safe, and if so, does the economic situation bode well to provide essentials, namely a job, housing, education and reliable public services?

It is helpful to identify three groups of countries: ones that are still mired in war and/or high‐ intensity civil conflicts, countries where medium‐intensity conflict persist and are already in the process of rebuilding, and countries which are not in conflict. According to the Armed Conflict Survey (IISS 2017), high‐intensity conflict is defined by frequent (daily) armed clashes between governments, government forces and insurgents, or among non‐state armed groups that control territory. Medium‐intensity, on the other hand refers to “regular armed clashes between governments, government forces and insurgents.” (IISS 2017) Within the first category, according to the Armed Conflict Survey in 2016 are Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Iraq, while Myanmar, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan are in medium‐intensity conflict. (Eritrea is not included in the Armed Conflict Survey in 2017, discussed in Annex). Minorities in Albania, Kosovo and Serbia are often the objects of discrimination but countries are not in conflict.

A capsule summary of the security and social situation in each of the other countries included in this survey can be found in Annex 2. The survey illustrates how impractical return is today in the countries in conflict, such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and voluntary return in large

> 36 Best practice and new methods in return policy, July 2017, http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Meldungen/EN/2017/EMN/20170504‐emnjahrestagung‐ rueckkehr.html