This policy brief synthesises findings from the Horizon Europe project GAPs, a three‑year interdisciplinary study (2023–2026) conducted in 11 countries by 17 partner institutions and more than 50 researchers. Several key findings EU return governance is facing an enduring implementation gap: orders to leave remain high, while effective returns and sustainable reintegration outcomes remain limited. GAPs evidence indicates that addressing this gap cannot be achieved through “more enforcement” alone; it requires rights-based procedures, credible reintegration pathways, transparent data, and cooperation models that are partnership-based rather than purely transactional.Across Member States, a narrative of “voluntariness” often masks a continuum of coercion. Indirect pressure (-threats of- detention, withdrawal of services and basic rights, and informal “persuasion” practices) undermines genuine consent, erodes trust, and increases the likelihood of re-migration. Post-return outcomes across Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria and Tunisia show persistent hardship, insecurity and weak access to livelihoods and services. Where assistance exists, it is frequently short-term, bureaucratic, unevenly accessible, and disconnected from structural conditions. Many returnees express onward or re-migration aspirations when reintegration is not viable or sustainable. Return diplomacy and readmission cooperation work better when embedded in comprehensive packages that include reintegration support, legal mobility opportunities and mutual trust. Return-focused diplomacy can generate hidden costs and human-rights trade-offs, particularly when procedural safeguards are weakened for “efficiency”. However, assurances on human rights compliance and procedural safeguards are essential for a successful and sustainable implementation of return agreements/arrangements. Accountability deficits remain acute: return statistics and financial data are fragmented, methodologically inconsistent and often opaque. Cost-benefit assessment is therefore weak, despite the high direct and indirect costs of coerced return. Because non-return is the empirical reality in many cases, alternatives to return (ATR) are not marginal. They are structurally central to governance and require clear minimum standards, judicial oversight and predictable pathways out of prolonged limbo. This brief provides evidence-based pathways and recommendations for the European Commission, the European Parliament, and EU Member States to advance return governance that is both humane and effective - consistent with fundamental rights and the EU’s constitutional principles and norms.