Inflatable dinghies, Mediterranean crossings, shipwrecks and images of rescued migrants: these scenes feature disproportionately in European perceptions of African migration. Yet international data paint a far more complex picture. The majority of African migrants remain on the continent, whilst most of those forced to flee do not even cross an international border.
In the European public debate, African migration is often associated with a few now-familiar images: overcrowded boats in the Mediterranean, men and women disembarking on European shores, rescue operations, or accounts of the violence suffered along migration routes.
These images are real. The tragedies they document are real too. But their prominence in the media must not be confused with their actual significance within the broader context of African migration.
This is precisely one of the key findings of an analysis focusing on African migration dynamics, based on data from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA), supplemented by data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC).
The figures reveal a reality often overlooked in mainstream narratives: African migration is, first and foremost, an African phenomenon.
The majority of African migrants remain in Africa
In 2024, there were approximately 304 million international migrants worldwide. People from Africa accounted for around 15 per cent of this total.
But the most telling figure concerns their destination.
Around 25 million Africans were living in an African country other than the one where they were born or of which they were nationals. By way of comparison, around 20.7 million Africans were living outside the continent.
In other words, there were around 21 per cent more Africans living in an African country other than the one where they were born or of which they were nationals than there were living outside Africa.
This figure alone is enough to challenge a particularly widespread perception: that of a continent whose population is seeking en masse to reach Europe.
The reality is much more regional in nature.
A Nigerian might migrate to Côte d’Ivoire, a Burkinabe to Ghana, a Congolese to Angola, a Zimbabwean to South Africa, or a Togolese to Ghana, Benin or Côte d’Ivoire.
These movements are sometimes temporary, circular or induced by work, trade, study or family ties.
Yet they are far less visible in the international media than crossings of the Mediterranean.
Why does Africans migrate primarily within Africa?
Several factors explain this predominance of intra-continental migration.
The first is geographical. Moving to a neighbouring country generally requires fewer financial and logistical resources than undertaking a journey to Europe, North America or the Middle East.
The second factor is institutional.
Certain African regional economic communities have developed mechanisms to facilitate the movement of people. In West Africa, the principle of free movement within ECOWAS has historically facilitated travel between member states.
Linguistic, cultural and family ties also play a role.
Added to this are economic needs. Disparities in income and employment opportunities between neighbouring countries are significant factors driving mobility.
This reality is particularly important for understanding West African migration. A border does not necessarily represent a social or economic divide: people may have family, commercial and cultural ties on both sides of the border.
Not all African migrants are refugees
Another common misconception is to equate African migration with fleeing conflict.
Wars, violence and persecution do indeed cause significant displacement. But the majority of African migrants are not refugees.
Around 45.8 million Africans were living as international migrants worldwide, of whom around 12.2 million were refugees or asylum seekers.
This means that the majority of African migrants move for other reasons: employment, education, trade, family reunification, economic opportunities or other personal plans.
This distinction is crucial.
A young person leaving Lomé to study abroad does not follow the same path as a family fleeing a war. A trader who regularly crosses a border for business purposes is not in the same situation as someone forced to flee their village under threat from an armed group.
Lumping all these journeys into the same category amounts to ignoring the diversity of migration experiences.
When war forces people to leave, most remain nearby
The confusion becomes even more problematic when discussing forced displacement.
By the end of 2024, more than 120 million people had been forcibly displaced worldwide, according to the UNHCR. But around 73.5 million – nearly 60 per cent – were internally displaced persons.
They had therefore left their homes, but not their country.
Africa is a particularly striking example of this reality.
Conflicts in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have caused massive population movements within national borders. Neighbouring countries are also hosting millions of refugees.
This means that a person fleeing a war in Sudan does not automatically head for the Mediterranean.
They may move to another part of the country or cross the border into Chad, South Sudan, Egypt or Ethiopia.
Geographical proximity therefore remains a key factor in forced displacement.
African countries are also host countries
This reality also requires us to change our perspective on African countries.
Africa is not merely a continent of origin. It is also a continent of destination and host nations. Countries such as Uganda, Côte d’Ivoire, South Africa and Nigeria host large migrant and refugee populations. This situation is particularly significant in the case of forced displacement.
Countries with limited resources bear a considerable share of the burden of hosting and protecting displaced populations.
This reality is often absent from media coverage, which tends to focus on European borders.
Yet it constitutes an essential component of the global geography of migration.
The European case: a reality different from the media portrayal
Migration from Africa to Europe is very real. It must certainly not be downplayed.
But it must be viewed within the broader context of migration.
The available data on the European Union show, in particular, that African migration to Europe is not limited to asylum applications.
In 2024, the number of residence permits issued to African nationals for reasons including work, study or family ties was significantly higher than the number of first-time asylum applications: around 670,000 residence permits, compared with around 240,000 first-time asylum applications, according to the data cited in the analysis.
This comparison is significant.
It shows that even when they are heading to Europe, not all Africans are people fleeing war or entering the continent irregularly.
Migration from Africa to Europe also includes students, workers, family members, entrepreneurs and other categories of migrants.
The paradox of dangerous routes
A paradox then emerges. Regular routes to Europe are often hard for a large proportion of Africans to access. Visa procedures can be costly, complex and the outcome uncertain.
At the same time, opportunities for regular migration for work or study remain limited in relation to demand.
This situation contributes to making certain irregular routes more visible.
People who do not have access to a regular route may turn to intermediaries and dangerous routes.
Crossing the Mediterranean then becomes the visible culmination of a much longer journey.
When imagery shapes policy
This portrayal is not without consequences.
If African migration is primarily perceived as a threat or an imminent ‘crisis’, public responses risk prioritising border control, deterrence and limiting arrivals.
However, an effective migration policy must take into account the diversity of mobility patterns. It must also take into consideration the African countries that themselves host large migrant and refugee populations.
This means, in particular, strengthening reception capacities, improving data, developing regular channels for mobility and supporting African mechanisms for free movement.
Be mindful of the limitations of the figures
We must, however, remain cautious when interpreting statistics.
The UN-DESA data used to measure international migration are primarily stock data. They indicate how many migrants are living in a country at a given point in time, but do not always reveal precisely when they migrated or why. Nor do they capture the full extent of temporary or circular mobility.
Internal migration, meanwhile, is largely absent from these statistics on international migration. This is why data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Institute for Digital, Management and Cognition Sciences (IDMC) are essential for understanding forced displacement within countries. This methodological limitation serves as a reminder of a key rule in data journalism: a figure never tells the whole story.
Rethinking the migration narrative
For Dialogue-Migration, the aim is therefore not to deny that people are leaving for Europe, nor to downplay the tragedies along migration routes. It is to put each phenomenon into its proper context.
Africa is migrating. But it is not migrating primarily to Europe. Africans cross borders, but often those of neighbouring countries.
Conflicts displace millions of people, but the majority of those forced to flee remain in their own country or region.
And when they reach Europe, African migrants are not necessarily refugees: many are students, workers, family members or entrepreneurs. This reality calls for us to move beyond a purely security-based view of migration.
