on the other hand, does not have a voluntary return program with IOM since the geographical nearness of the country makes individual voluntary return feasible. It can be argued that voluntary return programs can be attractive for economic migrants originating from safe third countries, though, as to be expected, they are not an option for asylum seekers and forced migrants. In terms of cost, with the exception of Albania, where migrants are returned by bus, forced removal of third country nationals normally takes place through charter flights or via regular flights (with or without escort). The cost of a forced return via charter flight is 1486,75 euros and via reservations in regular airlines 404,7 euros.123 Unsurprisingly, the latter are preferred. In 2010, 1,145 nationals were returned via charter flights to Afghanistan and Pakistan primarily. During the same period, three times more migrants (4,238 migrants) were returned via regular flights. The top five nationalities were Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq and China.124 The cost of voluntary return flights is not precisely known, since neither the police nor the IOM were able to provide conclusive answers. Between mid 2010- mid 2012 the average cost of returns operated under the Returns Fund was estimated at 1,104 euros per return. 125 This would include the financial assistance of 300 euros. If we divide the funding received by the IOM under the EEA Grants against the number of persons returned, then the average cost emerges as 1,250 euros per return. However, this is an estimated sum. The precise figure will vary according to the country of origin and depending on the amount of financial assistance provided to reintegrate the migrant to his/her home country. Assessing the cost-effectiveness In terms of cost-effectiveness, the available data indicate that forced return via charter flight is the most expensive type of return, both in terms of cost and in terms of human resources deployed; voluntary returns are less costly, bureaucratically easier to carry out 126 and potentially carry more sustainable results, since the migrant opted to return and has, thus, has fewer incentives to return to Europe again. 123 Calculated on the basis of funding received divided by returns operated. See Ministry of Citizen Protection, Parliamentary Reply of 1 December 2012, available at http://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/67715b2c-ec81-4f0cad6a-476a34d732bd/7853135.pdf 124 125 See Ministry of Citizen Protection, Annual Implementation Report to European Return Fund 2010 fn. 123 126 See also http://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/67715b2c-ec81-4f0c-ad6a-476a34d732bd/7853135.pdf ; interview with Head of Elliniko Pre-Removal Centre, 10 April 2014 Page 58