returns (forced or voluntary) as a priority in the management of irregular migration and increasingly a link is highlighted between ‘voluntary and forced return and conceived of both as essential and legitimate tools of migration management’ (IOM/MPR, 2010: 31). The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has reiterated the importance of returns of irregular migrants, and ‘recognizes that many of these people will have to leave Europe and have a responsibility to do so. Some, however, may not be able to meet this obligation on their own and may need assistance’14. AVR(R) is thus depicted as responding to a pre-existing need. Until recently Greece had a poor record in returns, partly due to insufficient embassy collaborations and ‘bogus’ asylum claims that perpetuated one’s stay in the country (return cannot take place while an asylum claim is pending). In the past two years, there is instead a noticeable increase in expulsions and a strong promotion of voluntary return programs often in collaboration with IOM or operated by the Hellenic Police. According to a Frontex official, who requested anonymity, Greece went from having infrequent return flights to countries of origin and/or transit, to performing twice-a-month returns15. Simultaneously, the IOM voluntary return program was strengthened and within a period of two years (2010-2012) a total of 4,978 had been returned to their country of origin with the support of the European Return Fund. Additional funding and support has come from various sources, including the European Return Fund, the EAA Grants and the United Kingdom Border Agency. It should, however, be noted that ‘voluntary’ return from the pre-departure detention facilities (currently five around the country), which was where one of the main recruitment for repatriation takes place, raises questions of sustainability. For those who opt to return home, rather than spend the 18-month maximum time in detention, repatriation is “voluntary” in the sense that it is the least worst of two bad options. We have, however, little data as of now to show how successful this type of return is; in relation to retaining the returnees in the country of origin. Apprehension, detention and return formed for the first time a rounded approach in tackling irregular migrant flows. As the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution of 201316 recognised, Greece enhanced border controls and adopted a policy of systematic detention of irregular migrants and asylum seekers in order to stem the flow. While these policies reduced the arrivals from the Evros border, they transferred arrivals back to the Greek Turkish sea borders, along the Aegean islands. The islands of Lesvos, Samos and the Dodecanese are once again on the receiving end of irregular migrants, though with less dramatic numbers 14 Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1742 (2010). “Voluntary Return Programmes: an effective, humane and cost-effective mechanism for returning irregular migrants”. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 15 The interviewee refers to Return Flights operated by Greek police with funding from the European Return Fund. Interviewee requested anonymity. (Interview with Frontex official, recorded in Athens on January 2013). 16 Parliamentary Assembly (2013), ‘Migration and Asylum: mounting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean’, Resolution 1918/2013, http://assembly.coe.int, 18/2/2013. Page 10