Many European countries seek to distribute asylum reception, local resistance remains strong

Since February 2024, the Dispersal Act (Spreidingswet) has been in force in the Netherlands, aiming to distribute the reception of asylum seekers more balanced across municipalities. Many other EU Member States have adopted similar national measures. In those countries too, the opening of a new reception centre often meets with local resistance. Nevertheless, the Netherlands and other countries have found effective ways to foster greater public support for new reception centres.

> Read the full EMN study (comparison between 23 countries*) and the two-pager from EMN Netherlands (comparison of research results from a Dutch perspective)

The Netherlands is not the only country in Europe with a national dispersal policy. Seventeen other countries (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, LU, LV, PL, SE, SI, SK; RS) also aim to distribute reception facilities evenly across their territory. The allocation is usually based on demographic, economic and social characteristics of the municipalities. Only in Germany and France does the dispersal mechanism, as in the Netherlands, have a binding character. Five, mostly smaller, EU Member States (CY, EE, HU, LT, MT) have no policy to disperse reception facilities.

Local resistance is common

Not only in the Netherlands but also elsewhere in Europe, the opening of a new reception centre can lead to tensions. Fifteen countries, including the Netherlands, experience resistance from local communities and stakeholders against the establishment of reception facilities (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, FI, HR, IE, LU, LV, NL, PL, SI; RS). This resistance can range from fear, coming from negative perceptions, to violent opposition. In some countries (BE, FR, IE, LU, SE), opposition also comes from local authorities, due to concerns about possible negative reactions from residents and/or voters. The Netherlands and France report that political tensions run so high they can at times culminate into violence against elected and public officials.

Countries focus on cooperation to increase public support

A smoothly functioning national dispersal policy depends on good cooperation with local communities. The Netherlands and 15 other countries (BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, IE, LV, LU, PL, SE, SI; RS) therefore involve local authorities in plans to open reception facilities. Effective ways that countries have found to generate support for new reception centres include:
•    developing the criteria for dispersal in consultation with local authorities;
•    creating various forms of dialogue and partnership between stakeholders;
•    recruiting local staff and volunteers for the reception facilities;
•    ensuring transparent and proactive communication;
•    in the Netherlands: the so-called participation desks (meedoenbalies), where asylum applicants can register for activities such as voluntary work, sports, recreation, and sometimes paid work.

*Participating countries: Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Cyprus (CY), Czechia (CZ), Germany (DE), Estonia (EE), Spain (ES), Finland (FI), France (FR), Croatia (HR), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Latvia (LV), Malta (MT), The Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), Sweden (SE), Slovenia (SI), Slovakia (SK); Serbia (RS)