Fluctuating numbers of asylum applications pose a challenge for reception, not only in the Netherlands, but also in the rest of Europe. Although governance models for housing asylum seekers vary, countries often encounter the same bottlenecks.
EMN inform, EMN NL two-pager | International protection
How do the Netherlands and other EU Member States organise the reception of asylum seekers?
3 December 2024
Based on the Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU and the recast (EU) 2024/1346 , EU Member States are obliged to ensure an adequate standard of living for people applying for asylum (international protection). Housing is part of this.
The Netherlands and the Dispersion Act
Research by the European Migration Network shows that countries organise the reception of asylum seekers in three ways: centrally, de-centrally, or a combination of both. The governance model in the Netherlands, like that of 7 other countries (AT, BE, FR, IT, LU, LT, NO), is a hybrid form. Since February 1, 2024, the Act on Common Tasks for Asylum Reception Facilities[MS4] (Dispersion Act) has been in force in the Netherlands. With this, municipalities have a formal legal duty to provide adequate housing for asylum seekers. Municipalities work together to implement this in order to ensure a good distribution of reception facilities. The future of the Dispersion Act has been uncertain since the Cabinet Schoof took office.
Governance models in Europe
Many other countries (BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, LV, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK; RS) use a fully centralised governance model. A single authority, usually the Ministry of Interior, is responsible for asylum reception. The responsible authority supervises the reception system through various directorates and offices or through a specialised agency.
Only Germany organises asylum reception completely decentralised. In the German model, the 16 federal states and local authorities manage and operate the reception facilities. This allows federal states to determine their own approach and find local solutions to challenges, such as proportional distribution.
Uniform versus flexible
The different governance models can be effective for the specific needs of each country. According to all 18 countries with a centralized model (BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, LV, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK; RS), their approach offers advantages in terms of planning, coordination, uniformity, and clear accountability. The mixed model enables the Netherlands and five other countries (AT, FR, IT, LT, LU) to respond better to different needs and circumstances, according to their own statements. Germany values the decentralized model because of the flexibility that federal states have to determine their own approach, apply local solutions, and use clear decision-making structures at the federal state level.
Bottlenecks
Regardless of the governance model, many countries experience challenges in effectively governing and managing asylum reception. The Netherlands and eight other countries (AT, CY, FI, FR, HR, PL, SK, NO) encounter capacity problems or experience a lack of flexibility and/or available resources in the form of personnel, time, and money. Countries with mixed and decentralized models also often have problems coordinating services. This can result in gaps in service provision or duplication, making support less efficient and less clear for asylum seekers (CY, DE, EL, FI, HR, IE, IT, LU, LT; NO, RS).
*Participating countries: Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Cyprus (CY), Czech Republic (CZ), Germany (DE), Estonia (EE), Greece (EL), Spain (ES), Finland (FI), France (FR), Croatia (HR), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Latvia (LV), Malta (MT), Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Sweden (SE), Slovenia (SI), Slovakia (SK); Norway (NO), Serbia (RS)
