Towards a Global Resettlement Alliance

Second claim: Resettlement and other refugee admission programmes signal solidarity to first countries of asylum and have a “strategic use” for the broader refugee protection regime.

In recent admissions to Europe, the EU Commission and several admission countries have used the term “strategic” rather in reference to migration control interests. The admission of refugees from Turkey in exchange for cooperation on migration and border control under the EU-Turkey statement of March 2016 is a prime example of this. In such contexts, refugee admission risks becoming a humanitarian fig leaf in an otherwise more restrictive border regime. This undermines the humanitarian character and the original use of resettlement as an instrument of solidarity with third countries and contradicts its initial aim to stabilise the refugee protection system worldwide.

Third claim: Resettlement and other refugee admission programmes allow for a targeted selection of refugees.

Admission states consider discretionary selection as an advantage and frame it as a way to not only target those with specific needs but also to control who is accessing their sovereign territory. The discretionary selection entails the risk of cherry-picking and prioritising cultural desirability over need. The discretionary character of resettlement and other pathways as well as the intransparent selection process limits refugees’ agency and constraints accountability. Thus, the claim that refugee admission programmes target “particularly vulnerable” refugees remains a promise, with limited possibilities of legal or political scrutiny.

Amidst the lack of safe pathways for refugees, resettlement and humanitarian admission stand out as offering safe channels for movement and long-term solutions for a selected few. However, the number of available places has taken an unprecedented hit. This is not only a problem for refugees themselves, but also for the entire international system of refugee protection. To survive, that system requires meaningful tools to support responsibility sharing.

This analysis proposes a pathway towards more engagement over the next three years. Despite difficult political contexts, a positive turn is feasible in many of key resettlement countries, such as the United States, Canada, Sweden or Germany. Reflecting on the short-, medium-, and long-term horizons, this analysis proposes three steps to revive resettlement and humanitarian admission:

1. Recovery, 2022: a short-term coordinated effort enables resettlement to recover from the shock of COVID-19; governments make additional commitments to resettle Afghans, in addition to evacuations.
2. Stability, 2023: resettlement and humanitarian admission are on a stable growth trajectory; new programmes emerge, and the size of established resettlement programmes increases.
3. Sustainability, 2024: resettlement and humanitarian admission are more established tools of responsibility sharing, narrowing the gap between need and available places (target: at least 200,000 places globally per year, excluding other complementary pathways); higher numbers of available places offer new opportunities to use these tools strategically in the future. 

Figure 3: Growth Trajectory to Address Today’s Global Resettlement Needs within Ten Years”

Australia

Currently, resettlement and humanitarian admission numbers are falling. Political support for resettlement and humanitarian admission are relatively high, but the tools suffer from highly contentious domestic migration debates. Resettlement and humanitarian admission could increase moderately under the condition that the beneficiaries come from certain countries of origin, receive private sponsorship, or settle outside metropolitan areas.  

Figure 2: Share of UNHCR-referred Resettlement

For sources and further information, please consult the FES-Publication: Towards a Global Resettlement Alliance, page 17-20.

Canada

Resettlement and humanitarian admission is enjoying slow but steady growth, propelled by the Private Sponsorship Program in particular. Bipartisan government and public support as well as successful precedents contribute to consistently high numbers. There are prospects for moderate growth in admission numbers, and Canada is likely to remain an active advocate for private sponsorship programmes.

Figure 5: Resettled Refugees to Canada

For sources and further information, please consult the FES-Publication: Towards a Global Resettlement Alliance, page 21-24.

France

The number of ad-hoc admission programmes has increased significantly since 2015, topping up the country’s small permanent resettlement programme. Asylum in general is under pressure amidst a divisive domestic policy environment, and the government is prioritising the reduction of irregular migration. Resettlement and humanitarian admission would be at risk under an extreme right-wing government. If centrist parties prevail, France is unlikely to emerge as a leader in resettlement and humanitarian admission, but it may moderately increase its numbers if there were momentum on the EU level, with Germany taking the lead.

Figure 7: Biannual Commitments for Resettlement

For sources and further information, please consult the FES-Publication: Towards a Global Resettlement Alliance, page 25-26.

Germany

Resettlement and humanitarian admission are steadily becoming established tools of Germany’s asylum policy. Political support for resettlement and humanitarian admission are high, particularly when common EU responses are in place and when these tools support wider foreign policy goals on steering migration. There is potential for a modest increase in resettlement numbers as well as more political investment in coordinating frameworks.

Figure 9: Number of Asylum Applications, Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Programmes

For sources and further information, please consult the FES-Publication: Towards a Global Resettlement Alliance, page 27-30.

Sweden

Sweden maintains a well-established, permanent programme of UNHCR-referred resettlement at a relatively stable size. Traditionally an advocate for more resettlement, the Swedish government has become more cautious amidst a political environment in which migration has become more controversial since 2015. 

Sweden will continue to engage actively in international cooperation, but growth prospects for resettlement and humanitarian admission will depend on other European countries’ commitments.  

For sources and further information, please consult the FES-Publication: Towards a Global Resettlement Alliance, page 31-33.

United States of America

With refugee admission drastically reduced under the Trump administration, the United States of America is struggling to reclaim its previous position as the world’s top resettlement country. After decades of cross-partisan consensus, resettlement has fallen victim to anti-immigrant, partisan politics.

The USA is already extensively engaged in existing international exchange forums on resettlement and humanitarian admission.

For sources and further information, please consult the FES-Publication: Towards a Global Resettlement Alliance, page 34-36.

This table shows the share of persons admitted through resettlement and humanitarian admission schemes by the admission country population size.  Countries such as Canada, Sweden, USA and Australia have a long tradition of resettlement programs and use these instruments much more effectively. 

Figure 2: Share of new resettlement and humanitarian admission by resettlement country population (in percent)

For sources and further information, please consult the FES-Publication: Towards a Global Resettlement Alliance, page 38.