Across Europe, the focus of governments in terms of migration governance concentrates overwhelmingly on one area—the number of migrants entering irregularly in Europe. From the various migration deals with countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean sea, to national initiatives such as Italy’s ill-fated efforts to establish offshore processing facilities in Albania, to the EU’s recent calls to step up deportations, the priority is on containment, deterrence and border control. From this perspective, the most important metric of success is the extent to which these policies have managed to curb the number of migrants entering Europe irregularly. What is often missing from these discussions, however, is the human cost of these policies—including the most extreme consequence: deaths and disappearances of migrants attempting to enter Europe.
That so many continue to disappear almost daily—without hope of recovery—is a situation that would be deemed intolerable in any other context.
That so many continue to disappear almost daily—without hope of recovery—is a situation that would be deemed intolerable in any other context. Yet, it is largely met with public statements of concern, and, often disingenuously used as a justification for a more hardline approach to reduce irregular migration and stop the boats. Meanwhile, meaningful action remains scarce and the numbers persist at unacceptably high levels. There are institutional failures such as the systematic rollback of search and rescue efforts across Europe and the persistent failure of governments to properly document migrant deaths and facilitate identification. This lack of meaningful action in response to migrant deaths is a further denial of their humanity and leads to unacceptable invisibility.
The lack of a unified platform for data sharing among various stakeholders—such as national authorities, NGOs, and media—further complicates efforts to obtain a clear picture of the true scale of the crisis, leaving many deaths unreported or misrepresented. Consequently, while governments regularly publish figures on detections and returns, the death tolls incurred along the way remain opaque
This article looks at the critical role of data in understanding the scale of migrant deaths and disappearances, the barriers to accurate data collection, the different methodologies used to estimate fatalities, and the broader implications of these numbers for policy and public awareness.
The urgent need for identification and more accurate data on deaths and disappearances
Under Objective 8 of the Global Compact for Migration (GCM), states undertook to “save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants.” These efforts should include provisions for the collection of data on deceased migrants to ensure traceability after burial “in accordance with internationally accepted forensic standards.” Signatories further agreed to “establish coordination channels at the transnational level to facilitate identification and the provision of information to families.” However, as mentioned in the UNSG 2024 report on the implementation of the GCM, four years into its implementation, persistent and severe challenges remain, demanding urgent attention.
There are the families and friends of those who disappear who will likely never determine the fate of their loved ones.
There are many reasons why the lack of meaningful action to identify the dead and collect more reliable data on deaths and disappearances, let alone prevent migrant deaths is troubling, but first and foremost is the right of migrants and their families to dignity and recognition. There are the families and friends of those who disappear who will likely never determine the fate of their loved ones. The thousands of unknown deaths at sea have left behind tens of thousands of others who will never receive an answer, leaving them in a limbo and unable to move on. The uncertainty they face—a state described by ICRC as “ambiguous loss”—only compounds their grief and denies them the possibility of any closure or healing.
Several international agreements and declarations on the issue of missing migrants, such as the 2018 Mytilini Declaration, the 2019 Guiding Principles for the Search for Disappeared Persons and the Global Compact for Migration stress the importance of the dead be searched for, collected, documented, identified, and disposed of in a dignified manner, ideally by returning remains to bereaved families. Identification of those that perish is the first step to giving the dead dignity and offering a degree of peace to their surviving family and friends.
The fact that thousands of migrants disappear every year without even being counted contributes to a lack of awareness—not only among policymakers but also the general public—of the true extent of these dangers.
While identification and return of remains to families is crucial yet lacking—an issue further explored in a previous MMC article—there is also insufficient data to understand the full scale of the tragedy of people who go missing or lose their lives on migration journeys. Accurate data is essential for an evidence-based understanding of the dangers posed by the various routes to Europe, against the backdrop of the current approach to migration management. The fact that thousands of migrants disappear every year without even being counted contributes to a lack of awareness—not only among policymakers but also the general public—of the true extent of these dangers. This, in turn, ultimately desensitizes citizens in receiving countries to their plight.
Barriers to data collection
To date there is no accurate data on the true number of people who have died or disappeared attempting to enter Europe, nor on other migration routes globally.
To date there is no accurate data on the true number of people who have died or disappeared attempting to enter Europe, nor on other migration routes globally. On one level, this is perhaps unsurprising: the clandestine nature of most attempted crossings, and the desire of those making the journey to evade detection, mean that many fatalities slip under the radar. This is especially true when so many migration routes worldwide now involve traversing some of the most challenging natural environments imaginable, such as international waters, desert border areas, mountainous regions and dense jungle
Further complicating the situation is the multitude of different stakeholders relevant to data collection: national authorities, international agencies, NGOs, media outlets, local communities and shipping companies, to name just a few. At present, without a shared platform for collaboration and knowledge sharing, there is often little or no engagement between the groups. These issues are exacerbated by the fact that, with migration increasingly politicised, governments are frequently in opposition to activist organisations and sending communities. Even among different governments, reporting and communication can be patchy and inconsistent. Furthermore, many migrant deaths are never reported to national authorities, and those that are, may not be systematically collected and published.
Data on migrant deaths and disappearances is also inherently politicised, meaning many actors may not be incentivised to draw attention to the fatalities taking place in their waters. European governments have a vested interest in collecting data on arrivals, for instance, particularly if these large numbers can be used to justify additional EU assistance or the imposition of more restrictive border measures in response. Similarly, given the significant amounts of financial assistance they are receiving from the EU, North African countries such as Morocco and Tunisia are motivated to regularly publicise interceptions carried out by their coast guards as proof of their effectiveness. Estimating the number of fatalities, on the other hand, draws attention to the acute humanitarian failures occurring at Europe’s borders and may reframe irregular migration as a crisis of protection, not of border control.
The danger of the Western Africa route to the Canary Islands
While various organisations are working to address this gap, it is by no means easy to reach a reliable, commonly accepted figure when so many variables are at play. This is especially evident on the Atlantic route, leaving the Western African Coast (Senegal, Mauritania) to the Canary Islands. According to UNHCR data, since late 2019 the number of arrivals along this route has climbed steadily every year (apart from a dip in 2022) to 46,841 registered arrivals in 2024.
The uptick in movement along this route has been attributed, among other factors, to increasing surveillance along the Central Mediterranean route by the Libyan, Moroccan and Tunisian coastguards, financed with EU funding as part of its externalisation strategy to reduce arrivals in Europe. As interceptions along established routes have risen, migrants have been forced to pursue more dangerous routes to reach Europe, in particular towards the Canary Islands. The direct and indirect consequences of intensifying conflict and instability in Mali, for instance, appears to have driven large numbers of migrants from the country to attempt the journey to the Canary Islands during 2024.
This movement has continued to rise despite growing evidence of the dangers of the route. The journey from the coast of West Africa can take 10 days or even more, depending on the starting point and weather conditions, with small and poorly equipped pirogues travelling hundreds of kilometres of ocean before reaching their destination. In addition to the flimsy vessels used, in many cases those attempting the journey have little or no sea-faring experience and are often dispatched by unscrupulous smugglers with limited quantities of food, water, fuel or life jackets. In these conditions, it is easy for boats to drift off course or capsize, leaving those on board to die of thirst or drowning.
In this context, it is perhaps unsurprising that the true death toll along this route remains so contested. According to data from IOM’s Missing Migrants Project, a total of 1,062 people (up from 959 in 2023) died or disappeared along the route in 2024. This figure in itself is shocking, but is significantly lower than the estimate produced by the organisation Ca-minando Fronteras. Their figures suggest that as many as 9,757 migrants perished at sea on their way to the Canary Islands during the year (with data collection ending 15 December), up from 6,007 the year before. Comparing the IOM and Ca-minando Fronteras estimates for both 2023 and 2024, the disparities are striking, with the latter coming in more than nine times higher in 2024.
IOM’s Missing Migrants Project: The value of “minimum estimates”
This divergence between the estimates produced by IOM MMP and Ca-minando Fronteras, however, is less contradictory than it first appears. IOM itself admits that its figures likely exclude many others who died without trace and whose whereabouts may never be known. “We’ve always been clear that our figures are the minimum estimate,” says Julia Black, who has coordinated IOM’s Missing Migrants Project for the past decade. This is in part due to the nature of irregular movement, with most migrants actively seeking to avoid detection during their journey, but also the failure or inability of authorities to accurately report confirmed deaths or disaggregate them by migratory status.
Other categories of migrant deaths, including those who die “in refugee camps, migrant detention centres and during or after forced returns” are also excluded—a decision that may leave out significant numbers (for example, those intercepted at sea who then die in prison or in the process of being subsequently expelled from the country). The decision to exclude migrant deaths that occur in various circumstances—many of which fall directly under state authority (such as in detention centres, refugee camps, workplaces, or during and after forced returns)—limits the extent to which state actors can be held accountable for the true scale of migrant deaths. This potentially results in a disproportionate focus on the accountability of smugglers, traffickers, and other non-state actors for migrant deaths that occur during irregular migration journeys.
….there is still the problem of the “unknown unknowns”—the numerous incidents that are never formally documented and cannot be verified
IOM undertakes extensive monitoring of reported incidents and deploys a network of local and international contacts including maritime authorities, NGOs and government actors to identify and document any suspected fatalities that occur. Nevertheless, there is still the problem of what Black describes as the “unknown unknowns”—the numerous incidents that are never formally documented and cannot be verified to the high standard set by IOM. Though this is an issue even in relatively well-monitored border areas, it is especially pronounced in the context of the Atlantic route. “We know there are many people that are just disappearing -people are leaving irregularly, no one is keeping a logbook. Even if they arrive safely, we won’t necessarily know”. As it is, the majority of the deaths IOM documents rely on careful reconstruction and verification processes, given that the majority of bodies are never recovered: analysis by ICRC of IOM’s reporting in 2020-21, for instance found that only 7% of the fatalities it enumerated along the route to the Canary Islands were actually recovered bodies, with the remainder extrapolated from survivor testimony and other data.
Given the sensitivity of the figures and the need to protect itself against any accusation of bias, however, IOM has to ensure that its estimates are always “unimpeachable”: for instance, if a boat capsizes with between 50 and 100 people on board, then the Missing Migrants Project team will always go for the lowest figure rather than mid-range. This conservative approach, backed up with a publicly accessible catalogue of each and every incident that goes into its enumeration, has enormous value in ensuring the figures IOM produces are highly credible as minimum estimates that cannot be easily ignored or dismissed by states. “Unfortunately,” Black explains, “it also means that we aren’t capturing the full scope of this issue”.
Ca-minando Fronteras: strengths and potential limitations of a community-based approach to data collection
The NGO Ca-minando Fronteras, on the other hand, deploys a very different methodology through its use of participatory action research. Rather than focusing solely on reported incidents, it develops its figures in close consultation with sending communities, diaspora populations in Spain and the relatives of victims to develop an expanded picture of the fatalities occurring along the route. Through its wide-ranging outreach (including a 24-hour hotline and guidance for reporting incidents), the organisation engages directly with the families of missing migrants so they can register their disappearance with authorities. This serves two important functions. Firstly, it helps ensure relatives can access any available information on the fate of their loved one, potentially leading to their identification and the repatriation of their remains: at present, thousands of victims are never physically recovered and may never even have their deaths officially confirmed. Secondly, by developing its figures through grassroots research with the families and communities of migrants—who in general have much greater awareness of those who are missing than national authorities—it can capture a much wider picture of the number of fatalities occurring along the route, including those currently disappearing without trace at sea.
This approach is validated by independent research by other organisations, such as the ICRC, that have worked with the relatives of missing migrants who have disappeared to identify and locate victims as well as support the families struggling with their disappearance. These efforts highlight the magnitude of movement along the route—and just how few of the deaths occurring there are actually being documented.
These efforts highlight the magnitude of movement along the route—and just how few of the deaths occurring there are actually being documented.
Those engaged on the frontline of search and rescue efforts in other maritime areas, where there is more government surveillance in place and some (albeit limited) humanitarian search and rescue efforts, generally concur. According to Sophie Beau, one of the founders of SOS Méditerranee, a search and rescue organisation active in the Central Mediterranean, “there’s a very serious undercount—there are a lot of cases that we don’t know about, that we’re not even aware of”. She cites the organisation’s regular encounter of empty boats in the waters north of Libya with the engines still in place (while these are typically taken by Libyan coast guards from intercepted boats) and no evidence of the date or identifier routinely painted by NGOs on to rescued boats to identify them. These abandoned vessels are likely the remains of boats that have lost all their passengers along the way. However, with no further information to corroborate this or the physical remains of those on board, these cannot be registered as fatalities: “as long as there are no survivors,” says Beau, “these of course can’t be counted.”
This phenomenon of invisible shipwrecks is likely to be even more commonplace on the Atlantic route
This phenomenon of invisible shipwrecks is likely to be even more commonplace on the Atlantic route, where search and rescue operations are effectively non-existent in large areas of the route and a capsized boat is even less likely to be found. While Senegal and Mauritania are now receiving significant financial assistance from the EU to support increased surveillance of migrant vessels, these are primarily focused on intercepting boats at the point of embarkation rather than retrieving those in distress further out at sea. NGO search and rescue efforts, meanwhile, while seriously curtailed in the Mediterranean due to the criminalisation of their efforts by Italy, Greece and the EU, are even more challenging to implement over vast swathes of the Atlantic ocean. Boats may drift thousands of miles off course without being detected: this was illustrated in August 2024 by the discovery of a Senegalese boat carrying the remains of 14 people off the coast of the Dominican Republic. In practice, it is possible that the majority of fatalities along the route are attributable to so-called “ghost boats”—vessels that sink without a trace, meaning the remains of those on board are never located and their deaths uncounted.
However, the approach deployed by Ca-minando Fronteras has also some potential limitations. Unlike IOM, the NGO does not currently publish its data or methodology online, making it difficult for other agencies to cross-reference with their own information or understand how the figures have been reached. Unfortunately, the organisation did not respond to requests from MMC for an interview.
While the organisation’s methodology appears to rely primarily on direct contact with the families of missing migrants, it remains unclear whether they also systematically track confirmed deaths where bodies are recovered, even in cases where no families approach them. If so, they likely have a process to collect and aggregate reports of such deaths, though the precise mechanisms—who gathers the information and how it is verified—are not public. Additionally, it is not clear how potential duplications from multiple reports of the same incident are avoided.
Nevertheless, their research has succeeded in highlighting the scale of deaths occurring along the route through extensive media coverage, and has sufficient credibility for IOM to cite its figures as illustration of the large number of deaths that are likely going undetected. The two datasets are therefore in many ways complementary rather than contradictory, pointing to the reality of mass fatalities at sea and the near impossibility, at present, of accurately enumerating how many deaths are actually occurring. Ultimately, as Julia Black points out, “we are all working towards the same goal. The point is that no one should die—these migrant deaths are preventable.”
The dangers of data “instrumentalisation”
For many working on the frontline of the crisis, however, the implications go far beyond comparisons of the different figures currently available. “The broader question is why we’re having the discussion in the first place,” says Florian von König, Global Advocacy Lead of the ICRC’s Central Tracing Agency. “Should a 10-fold increase matter? A thousand is already enough.” His colleague Zita Crener, who works directly with the families of missing migrants, also warns against the dangers of the numbers serving as a “political distraction” to the reality on the ground. “The humanitarian problem is the same—it’s been happening for years and years. It’s important to see what the panorama is, but the emphasis ultimately should be on individuals and what they are facing”. Working closely with the loved ones of those who are missing, she stresses the importance of focusing on their stories and ensuring, whatever the outcome may be, that families do not have to live forever with the uncertainty of not knowing what happened to their loved ones.
The process of data collection itself “is absolutely important,” says Sophie Beau, “first off for ethical reasons and as a tribute to those who have died. But also because maritime migration is not recognized as a humanitarian crisis—the sea is not seen as a humanitarian space.” In this regard, publication of what data is available is a necessary step to challenge the deniability that some governments deploy in response to deaths at sea. Nevertheless, she emphasises that any figures on deaths and disappearances are estimates only, and should be recognised as such. All too often, data published in good faith and with careful caveats in place can be deployed by other actors inappropriately—in particular “the instrumentalization of death counts” for political purposes. “It’s very easy to deny the need for search and rescue when you can see a decrease in the numbers from one year to the next”, she explains, even when the difference is largely meaningless given the uncertainty surrounding the data itself. For example, in the context of the Central Mediterranean, in February 2025 Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni explicitly linked an apparent drop in the number of reported deaths at sea to her efforts to reduce irregular migration.
Humanising the numbers
Part of the challenge, then, is how to balance effective communication while avoiding simplification of the complex conditions on the ground. This is evident, for instance, in efforts to determine how “deadly” a particular migration route is through the calculation of the fatality rate. On the one hand, the proportionate fatality rate of the journey can give a clear picture of the risks involved. In the case of the Western Africa route, comparing the total number of deaths estimated by Ca-minando Fronteras during 2024 with the registered number of arrivals that year suggests that, at present, one in five people who attempt to reach the Canary Islands die during the journey. However, Julia Black argues that these metrics are “missing the point” by “implying that a human life is a percentage comparison”. Additionally, while comparing deaths with arrival figures does give a more complete picture of the fatality rate on a particular route than only considering the absolute number of deaths, it’s still an incomplete picture as it should also be compared with the number of attempted crossings and departures; a number that is unknown on most maritime migration routes.
The importance of rehumanising the discussion around irregular migration is also reflected in the abstract and technical language that often characterises policy debates—for instance, the use of euphemisms such as ‘unaccompanied minors’ and their ‘disappearance,’ which in reality describe the deaths of children drowning at sea. A more nuanced approach to the data is therefore needed, combining as much quantitative data as is available on deaths and disappearances at sea with qualitative analysis of who is making the journey, what is driving them to do so, and why so many fatalities are occurring. This combined approach can help develop a fuller picture of movement along the route.
Vincent Cochetel, former UNHCR’s Special Envoy for the Western and Central Mediterranean Situation, argues for the need to go beyond “absolute numbers” through a more holistic approach to understanding migration and mortality trends along the route. “Can the data have an impact? Yes and no. You don’t move people with the big numbers, shocking though these may be.” To be more effective, there needs to also be a more wide-ranging emphasis on the experiences and testimonies of migrants themselves. This is true not only in terms of shaping public opinion both in countries of origin and in Europe, but also in developing responsive, evidence-based policies around managing this migration.
There is also an opportunity to commit to a wide-ranging and ambitious research programme that balances the standardised and rigorous methodology evident in IOM’s publicly accessible data with the expansive, community-based approach that Ca-minando Fronteras uses in its work. “I do think there is a need,” says Sophie Beau, “for a comprehensive and global research that works with countries of origin, combining demographics, sociology and anthropology, to check and see what is the extent of missing for countries of origin.”
Ways forward
Notwithstanding these challenges, there are some positive signs that a range of international actors are now mobilising together to address these gaps in data. For instance, the ICRC continues to support an expanding Network of National Focal Points for Missing Migrants, with countries such as Senegal and The Gambia among its members. Developed under the umbrella of the Rabat Process, it is hoped this will consolidate into a multi-regional system of adequately resourced, governmental focal points in sending and transit countries.
At the same time, organisations are also exploiting new and emerging technologies to garner information in innovative ways. Besides the use of techniques such as craniofacial analysis and the documentation of other distinctive features such as tattoos to identify human remains, NGOs have been developing various cutting-edge tools such as drones and apps to support search and rescue operations. But just as important as the deployment of these experimental tools is the collation and synthesis of multiple different information sources or “big data” on migration movements, rescue operations and deadly incidents. In this regard, coordination and engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders is also key to ensure comprehensive, consistent data collection.
This is an important element in the work of the recently established Foundation for Humanitarian Action at Sea (FHAS), with its commitment to “gather information that is currently challenging to compile or locate, or simply non-existent”. Among other areas, it is seeking to expand information sharing by private maritime companies, a constituency often overlooked when considering migrant data collection. These operators frequently conduct emergency rescues themselves, in many cases without them ever being reported: FHAS is advocating for the creation of a formal database to document these incidents to help give a fuller picture of migration movements.
Ideally, there needs to be a stronger relationship of trust between governments, NGOs and local communities—something that is likely to remain elusive until authorities are willing to move away from a narrow emphasis on containment and reconnect with their humanitarian obligation to protect. In this regard, it is not only a question of what data is collected but also how it is then used. All parties need to be secure in the knowledge that the information they share will not be used to support the forcible interception or detention of migrants.
Ultimately, behind every number is a person, a life lost, a family waiting, a story that remains untold.
Ultimately, behind every number is a person, a life lost, a family waiting, a story that remains untold. The thousands who have disappeared on their journeys to Europe are not just statistics; they are people—sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones whose absence leaves an unfillable void. We owe it to them, and to the families still searching for answers, to ensure that these deaths are no longer ignored, and to contribute to policies leading to more alternatives to dangerous routes. Strengthening efforts to record and acknowledge these losses is not simply a matter of data, it is an essential step toward restoring dignity, demanding accountability, and affirming that every life matters. A more humane and just approach to migration begins by recognising those who never made it to safety, and ensuring they are never forgotten, and working to prevent such tragedies in the future.
The authors wish to thank all the expert informants who shared their thoughts and perspectives for this article.
