The migratory and humanitarian crisis of Ceuta is not the first occasion in which a small external border of the European Union has been overwhelmed by the arrival of thousands of people. Eleven years ago, during the great refugee crisis of 2015, the Greek islands of the Aegean Sea, and especially Lesbos, became the main entry point to Europe for hundreds of thousands of people coming from Turkey.
The comparison allows understanding the exceptional nature of what happened in Ceuta, although the figures and circumstances are different. The massive entry produced an immediate shock in a city of barely 20 square kilometers and about 84,000 inhabitants, while thousands of people have subsequently remained pending accommodation, identification, assistance, or the determination of their administrative situation.
Lesbos faced a much more prolonged pressure. During 2015, Greece received hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants by sea, mainly through the Aegean islands. The accumulated volume was much higher than that recorded in Ceuta, but it was distributed over months. The difference allows summarizing both episodes in a simple way: Lesbos suffered a sustained crisis of enormous magnitude; Ceuta experienced a border shock much more concentrated in time.
Lesbos came to receive thousands of people in a single day
The Aegean route connected the coasts of Turkey with Greek islands such as Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Kos, and Leros. Thousands of refugees and migrants made the crossing in small boats, often managed by human trafficking networks and without adequate safety conditions.
The pace increased extraordinarily during 2015. By the end of July, UNHCR had already counted about 124,000 arrivals by sea to Greece, compared to approximately 15,000 recorded during the same period in 2014. Only during July, about 50,000 people arrived.
Lesbos bore a good part of that pressure. The available centers did not have the capacity to accommodate such a volume of arrivals, and thousands of people ended up housed in improvised facilities or waiting outdoors while trying to register and continue to mainland Greece and other European countries.
Ceuta concentrated the crisis in an extraordinarily reduced space and period
The differential characteristic of Ceuta in 2026 has been precisely the speed with which the entry occurred and the subsequent impact on a very small territory. Once the most critical moment at the border was overcome, the problem quickly shifted from controlling access to attending to those who had remained inside the city.
The size of Ceuta multiplies the impact of any massive arrival. With an approximate population of 84,000 inhabitants distributed over about 20 square kilometers, thousands of additional people without stable accommodation represent an immediate pressure on public services, assistance resources, and urban spaces.
Part of those who remained in the city ended up sleeping on beaches, hills, and improvised settlements until temporary facilities began to be set up and expanded. That evolution is precisely one of the elements that most closely aligns the situation in Ceuta with what happened in the Greek islands during 2015.
Two humanitarian crises, but with different migratory profiles
The main difference between Lesbos and Ceuta appears when observing who were the protagonists of the displacements. The Greek crisis of 2015 was closely related to wars and persecutions in the Middle East and Asia.
UNHCR pointed out that summer that the vast majority of those arriving in Greece came from countries affected by conflicts or serious human rights violations, mainly Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. For that reason, the situation of 2015 was fundamentally characterized as a European refugee crisis.
Ceuta presents a more heterogeneous flow. In the currently established facilities, there are also people from Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, and the Central African Republic, several of them countries affected by conflicts or serious humanitarian crises, so some may meet the necessary conditions to apply for international protection.
Ceuta now faces the problem that Lesbos suffered after the arrivals
Once the initial moment was overcome, both crises present a particularly relevant similarity: what to do with thousands of people who remain within a small territory while their situation is determined.
In Lesbos, the Moria center became completely overwhelmed. In July 2015, Médecins Sans Frontières estimated that around 5,000 people had arrived on the island in just a few days, while Moria had a capacity for about 700. The result was overcrowding, poor hygienic conditions, and thousands of people forced to settle outside.
Ceuta has had to face a comparable situation in terms of capacity. Thousands of people were initially outside the ordinary devices and the response has required enabling new spaces, reinforcing assistance, and starting identification and triage processes. In Loma Margarita, for example, the device managed by Accem housed about 1,100 people this Monday and already has health assistance with Médicos del Mundo and Cruz Roja.
From Lesbos to Ceuta: overcrowding turns a migration crisis into a health problem
The experience of Lesbos shows that a reception crisis can end up generating significant health problems when thousands of people remain overcrowded without enough water, bathrooms, accommodation, or medical care. In July 2015, UNHCR warned that there were more than 3,000 refugees in difficult conditions in Kara Tepe and another 1,000 people were camping outside Moria, with a shortage of medical assistance, running water, sanitation, and protection from the heat.
Médecins Sans Frontières then described saturated facilities and serious hygienic deficiencies. The organization had to open medical consultations in Moria and Kara Tepe, install water points and chemical toilets, improve sanitation, and manage waste. Between July and December 2015, it carried out more than 16,100 medical consultations in Lesbos, in addition to providing mental health support to about 3,000 people.
Ceuta now faces a risk arising from similar conditions. The Medical College of Ceuta has warned that overcrowding and unsanitary conditions can favor the emergence and transmission of diseases, while the Nursing College has called for reinforcements in light of the increased pressure on assistance. In some improvised settlements, situations of extreme precariousness and a clearly insufficient availability of bathrooms have been documented.
However, there is currently no evidence of a general epidemic threat to the Ceuta population. Health authorities have confirmed only three cases of tuberculosis and none were contagious, while issues such as scabies, gastroenteritis, or other infections are being treated through the corresponding health protocols. The priority is to provide adequate accommodation, hygiene, and medical care.
The precedent of Lesbos points precisely in that direction. The WHO warned during the European crisis of 2015 that refugees and migrants should not be automatically considered a health threat. The main health problems were related to travel conditions, injuries, hypothermia, neglected chronic diseases, and reception conditions.
Lesbos was above all a refugee crisis
Completely equating both episodes would, however, lead to an incorrect conclusion. Lesbos became one of the main symbols of the European refugee crisis of 2015 because a huge proportion of those arriving were fleeing armed conflicts and persecutions.
In August of that year, UNHCR already classified what was happening in Greece as a "humanitarian emergency" that required an urgent response both from Greece and Europe. Arrivals by sea had increased by more than 750% compared to the same period the previous year.
The status of refugee is not automatically obtained by crossing a border from a certain country. Applications for international protection must be analyzed individually. However, the enormous weight of Syrians, Afghans, and Iraqis explains why international institutions described that situation fundamentally as a humanitarian and refugee emergency.
Morocco and Turkey, two decisive countries on the other side of the European border
Geography also places Morocco and Turkey in comparable positions as countries located immediately on the other side of two external borders of the European Union, although their political and migratory circumstances are different.
During the Lesbos crisis, Turkey became an indispensable actor for the European strategy. Most of the vessels reaching the Greek islands departed from its coast, and Brussels ultimately concluded that reducing arrivals required intensifying cooperation with Ankara.
That strategy led to the EU-Turkey statement of March 18, 2016, aimed at reducing irregular crossings in the Aegean and reorganizing the management of refugees. The European response combined border control, asylum procedures, reception, returns, and cooperation with the country located on the other side of the border.
Europe reinforced borders, reception, and cooperation with Turkey
The European response to that crisis did not consist solely of preventing arrivals. The EU promoted the so-called "hotspots", centers aimed at registering, identifying, and taking the fingerprints of those arriving, while also trying to strengthen the Greek asylum system and increase its reception capacity.
The Union also launched relocation and resettlement mechanisms, although their operation generated strong tensions among the Member States. At the same time, cooperation with Turkey took on a central role in reducing irregular crossings in the Aegean and combating human trafficking networks.
The experience also left a health lesson. Registering and quickly accommodating those who arrive is not only a migratory or security issue, but also a public health tool: it allows knowing where people are, conducting triage, detecting diseases, ensuring treatments, and preventing overcrowding and lack of hygiene from generating problems that did not initially exist.
Ceuta in front of the mirror of Lesbos: two different ways to overflow a European border
The comparison ultimately leaves two different photographs of a similar problem. Lesbos received a much larger volume of people over a prolonged period, within an international refugee crisis closely linked to the wars in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Ceuta has suffered, on the other hand, an extraordinary concentration of entries in a very short period. Once the initial emergency at the border was overcome, the priority has shifted towards accommodation, identification, the protection of minors, and healthcare for those remaining in the city.
Fifteen years after Lesbos, Europe thus faces a familiar question: what happens when one of its external borders receives in a very short time more people than it can identify, accommodate, and attend to with its usual resources. The Greek precedent showed that a border crisis that does not quickly receive sufficient capacity for reception can also transform into a humanitarian and health crisis, precisely because of the conditions in which the people trapped in the territory end up living.