Introduction
The persistence of conflicts -both international and civil- and violence across the globe, as is the case in Ukraine, Gaza, Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Ethiopia and Myanmar, as well as natural disasters in various regions, including in Pakistan, the Philippines, China, India and Bangladesh continue to generate significant migratory movements worldwide. According to UNHCR’s 2023 Global Trends, published in June 2024, 117.3 million persons were forcibly displaced at the end of 2023, including 67.08 million internally displaced persons and 43.4 million refugees.[1]
Most refugees remain near their country of origin, with 69 percent hosted in neighboring countries at the end of 2023. Low– and middle– income countries continue to host the majority of the world’s refugees, with 75 per cent of refugees living in low- and middle-income countries.[2] Still, refugees and migrants continue to engage in perilous journeys towards countries of the Global North. Whereas a significant decrease in irregular border crossings into the EU was recorded in 2024, with a 38% drop compared to the previous year,[3] IOM named 2024 as the ‘deadliest year on record for migrants’, with 8,938 people perishing on migration routes worldwide.[4] According to IOM, ‘the 2,452 deaths documented in the Mediterranean Sea in 2024 are not the highest annual figure, but the large number shows the need for […] safe and regular migration routes as alternatives to this risky journey.’[5]
The state of affairs of global migration underscores the need for structured resettlement and humanitarian admission programs. UNHCR projects 2.9 million refugees will need resettlement in 2025, up from 2.4 million in 2024.[6]
Resettlement has been integral to the development to create a Common European Asylum System since 2003, when the EU Commission recommended resettlement as an instrument ‘to complement a fair and efficient territorial asylum system in compliance with international obligations and with respect for dialogue and partnership with third countries.’[7] Since 2015, EU-sponsored resettlement schemes, involving a significant number of EU countries, have allowed 130,000 of the most vulnerable people in need of international protection to find shelter in the EU. Resettlement is also an important element of the EU-Turkey Statement. Since March 2016, more than 43,000 Syrians have been resettled to EU countries. Finally, Under the 2024-2025 EU Resettlement and Humanitarian admission scheme, 14 EU countries provided 61,000 pledges for resettlement and humanitarian admission.[8]
Providing pathways to protection is a key element of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, adopted in 2024, which overhauled the Union’s asylum and migration policy. According to the Preamble of the Regulation for a Union Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework, adopted as part of the new Pact, “The Union Framework should be placed in the context of international resettlement and humanitarian admission efforts. The contribution of the Union Framework to meeting global resettlement and humanitarian admission needs should help strengthen the Union’s partnership with third countries with the objective of showing solidarity with countries in regions to which a large number of persons in need of international protection has been displaced by helping to alleviate the pressure on those countries, fostering those countries’ capacity to improve reception and international protection conditions, and reducing irregular and dangerous onward movements of third-country nationals and stateless persons in need of international protection, in the context of migration.”[9]
The above highlights that resettlement as well as humanitarian admissions schemes have emerged as significant tools in European migration policy making. It is thus opportune to foster exchange of best practices and foster policy dialogue on such schemes, with a view to meeting the avowed purpose of the Pact. Greece and Norway, as will be shown below, represent two different, but complementary approaches to the issue of resettlement and humanitarian admission between which a constructive and long-term dialogue can be established
The main question guiding this bilateral exchange program is: How can Greece leverage Norway’s expertise in resettlement and humanitarian admission to develop and implement sustainable legal pathways for international protection to the refugees who have the most need?
Legal and political context
The newly adopted Regulation (EU) 2024/1350 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a Union Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1147 (hereafter Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework Regulation) aims to standardize and institutionalize pathways for legal and safe migration. The framework promotes solidarity and responsibility-sharing between Member States and emphasizes the need for building on existing national experiences.
The background:
Resettlement and humanitarian admission refer to the process of admitting refugees in need of international protection, from the region where they have been displaced, to a resettlement country that grants them protection. These measures are meant to provide safe and legal alternatives to irregular migration and to showcase European solidarity with non-EU nations hosting large numbers of people fleeing conflict or persecution.
In November 2017, the Council commenced negotiations with the EU Parliament on the proposal for an EU resettlement framework, which were finalized in 2022. On 8 February 2024, representatives from EU member states approved the agreement made between the Council and the Parliament in 2022. The Council adopted the EU’s pact on migration and asylum on 14 May 2024 and, unlike other regulations in the asylum package, the two-year Union Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework Regulation 2024/1350 entered into force twenty days after it was published in the EU official journal (Article 16 of the Regulation).
The Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Regulation aims to establish a unified EU-wide approach based on ‘a common procedure together with common eligibility criteria and grounds for refusal of admission […], as well as common principles regarding the status to be granted to persons admitted’. The goal is ‘to contribute to increasing resettlement and humanitarian admission efforts and reduce divergences among the national resettlement practices and procedures’ (Preamble 13 of the Regulation). The Regulation introduces a structured planning mechanism whereby, based on a proposal from the European Commission, the Council will adopt a two-year Union Resettlement Plan. This plan will outline the total number of individuals to be admitted, national contributions (with quotas independently determined by each Member State), target population groups, and geographic priorities.
Importantly, the Regulation clarifies that ‘there is no right to request admission or to be admitted by a Member State. Moreover, there is no obligation on Member States to admit a person pursuant to this Regulation.’ (Preamble 25 of the Regulation). This position reflects on the one hand the discretion afforded to Member States in accepting individuals and, on the other hand, the lack of recognition of a right to resettlement under international and European law, as opposed to a right to asylum.
Overall, the Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework Regulation focuses on (a) harmonising eligibility criteria and procedures for admission, as well as grounds for refusal and (b) establishing a Union machinery, through which States can indicate the details of their participation and their contribution to resettlement and humanitarian admission on a voluntary basis.
The definitions:
Within the regulation, “resettlement” is defined as ‘the admission, following a referral from’ UNHCR, of non-EU citizens who are eligible and not refused as defined by the Regulation, ‘from a third country to which they have been displaced, to the territory of the Member States, and who are granted international protection and have access to a durable solution in accordance with EU and national law’ (Article 2 (1) of the Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework Regulation).
The parallel concept of ‘humanitarian admission’ is defined as admission after being ‘requested by a Member State, a referral from the UNHCR, the European Union Agency for Asylum or another relevant international body’, of non-EU citizens ‘from a third country to which they have been forcibly displaced, to the territory of the Member States and who, at least, on the basis of an initial evaluation’ meet the eligibility and refusal grounds in the Regulation, and are granted ‘humanitarian status under national law that provides for rights and obligations equivalent to those of’ the Qualification Regulation (Article 2 (3) of the Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework Regulation).
What is more, the Regulation refers to ’emergency admission’, meaning ‘the admission through resettlement or humanitarian admission of persons with urgent legal or physical protection needs or with immediate medical needs’ (Article 2 (4) of the Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework Regulation).
Union Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework and Eligibility for Admission:
According to Article 5 of the Regulation, third-country nationals or stateless persons who meet the refugee or subsidiary protection definitions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 (with cross-references to the definition of grounds of persecution and subsidiary protection in the Qualification Regulation) and at the same time fall into at least one of the categories: vulnerable persons, comprising: (i) women and girls at risk; (ii) minors, including unaccompanied minors; (iii) survivors of violence or torture, including on the basis of gender or sexual orientation; (iv) persons with legal and/or physical protection needs, including as regards protection from refoulement; (v) persons with medical needs, including where life-saving treatment is unavailable in the country to which they have been forcibly displaced; (vi) persons with disabilities; (vii) persons who lack a foreseeable alternative durable solution, in particular those in a protracted refugee situation, are eligible for Resettlement or Humanitarian Admission.
EU Monitoring bodies:
Article 11 of the Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Framework Regulation provides for the establishment of a High-Level Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Committee (High-Level Committee).[10] It shall be composed of representatives of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Member States. EUAA, the UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration shall be invited to attend the meetings of the High-Level Committee, while other relevant organization, including civil society organizations, may be invited to attend. The High Level Committee, chaired by the Commission, shall advise the Commission on issues related to the implementation of the Union Framework, including on a recommended number of persons to be admitted and the regions or third countries from which such admission is to be undertaken, taking into account the UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs.
The High-Level Committee was officially launched on 7 November 2024, with a view to helping the Commission lay down Union Plan for 2026-2027, which will determine the number of refugees to be admitted to the EU, and the countries and regions from which resettlements and humanitarian admissions should take place. The Union Plan will then be adopted by the Council based on a proposal from the Commission and the voluntary pledges of EU countries.
Resettlement Pledges:
For the two-year period of 2024-2025, 14 Member States submitted pledges for resettlement and humanitarian admission.[11] For some countries there has been a decrease in the number of pledges offered as for instance Finland, that from 1,050 in 2023 reduced to 500 pledges per year for the next 4 years, with priority given to vulnerable persons.
Also, Spain committed to receive people under the humanitarian admission scheme for the first time, with 3,400 pledges for humanitarian admission and 1,200 for resettlement. In addition, Norway and Switzerland are committed to resettling refugees. For Norway the pledge for 2024 was of 1,000 resettled refugees, which was 1,000 less from 2023. In 2025, the pledge is at 500, the reduction being justified with the high number of arrivals from Ukraine, Norway having received over 90.000 Ukrainians since 2022. The Federal Council of Switzerland approved of 1,600 admissions for the proposed time period depending on the number of unanticipated arrivals and the reception capacities.
Situational analysis: Greece
Greece has faced extraordinary migratory pressure due to its geographic location as a frontline EU Member State. In 2015 alone, Greece experienced an unprecedented increase in new arrivals by sea, with more than 850,000 arrivals.[12] Following the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement, arrivals have decreased, but have persisted. In 2024, the Greek Asylum Service registered 73.687 asylum applications, the second highest recorded number after 2019, when it registered 77.227.[13] In 2023, Greece registered the third highest number of asylum applications per capita among EU+ countries, after Cyprus and Austria.[14] Due to the situation of increased reception of asylum applications , Greece has since 2015, not been able to adopt a resettlement scheme and make pledges, which would add pressure to the asylum and reception system. Nonetheless, and despite the persisting pressure on the country’s reception, asylum and integration system over the last years Greece has actively pursued extraordinary humanitarian admission initiatives during emergencies.
Evacuation of women and vulnerable persons from Afghanistan (2021)
In the aftermath of the fall of Kabul, the Greek government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, committed to admitting Afghan women leaders plus members of their families with a view to providing them with safe haven. The selection and evacuation of these persons in need was an innovative example of institutional cooperation between state and civil society organizations, since the operation supported by the Melissa Network of Migrant Women and HumanRights360.
Even though immediate evacuation efforts were frustrated by the attack on Kabul Airport, the involved stakeholders continued working with their international partners to capitalize on the Greek government’s commitment. Within the first two months, a total of six flights brought close to 700 people to Athens, including many of the women parliamentarians, human rights defenders, athletes, and other leaders, alongside members of the legal community evacuated with the support of the International Bar Association and other global civil society organizations.
Generally, these evacuees were identified by civil society organizations and included in lists submitted to Greece’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for approval. Some evacuees boarded charter flights to Athens and were only provided visas upon arrival. Others were evacuated to countries where Greece has a consular presence and were provided with visas there before departing for Athens on regular scheduled fights. The visas provided were of limited territorial validity to Greece, excluding further travel in the Schengen Area.
Evacuees were received warmly and publicly by Greece’s leaders, including the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Migration and Asylum.[15] Greece’s Parliament provided a room for Afghan women MPs to hold an event together with their Greek counterparts. The U.S. Embassy also engaged systematically with the group. Some of the evacuees formed a new legal entity while in Greece, the Afghan Women Parliamentarians and Leaders Network, which has evolved into a global advocacy platform for Afghan women and girls.[16]
The agreement these NGOs reached with the Greek government included an express commitment to offer reception and asylum to the evacuees and was not predicated upon the existence of a further destination beyond Greece. The U.S. Embassy in Athens, the Canadian Embassy in Rome, the Federal Foreign Office in Germany, and several partners confirmed that an asylum application in Greece would not exclude evacuees from emerging pathways available to Afghans at risk. However, as the policy landscape remains fluid, many evacuees received advice to avoid engaging with the Greek authorities in case that prevented them from accessing resettlement opportunities.
As a result, many of those evacuated to Athens initially did not enter the Greek asylum process, on the advice of NGOs abroad which were hopeful that other countries would swiftly accept these evacuees. However, as funding streams became scarcer, the NGOs sponsoring their stay started advising their evacuees to apply for asylum, which would provide them with material reception conditions (such as accommodation in apartments, food, medical cover, and cash assistance).
Since then, almost all evacuees have left Greece. Most were accepted by Canada as part of Ottawa’s commitment to welcome Afghans at risk, while smaller numbers were admitted by other countries including France, Germany and the United States. A very small number remain in Greece as their applications for protection in other countries were refused.
Evacuation and reception of displaced persons from Ukraine following the Russian invasion (2022)
Greece and Ukraine signed a cooperation protocol for the reception and protection of unaccompanied children affected by the war. In April 2022, following bilateral coordination, Greece received an official request from the Ukrainian Ministry of Social Policy to transfer a group of unaccompanied minors from the “Child Protection Center” orphanage near Kyiv. The group included ten children, ranging in age from 10 months to 17 years — three accompanying staff members from the institution, and two minor children of the caregivers.[17]
The children originated from institutional care settings in Ukraine, where they had been placed due to the absence of parental care. During their stay in Greece, legal guardianship remained with the institution’s representative, who accompanied them and resided with them throughout their stay. In accordance with EU Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382, the hosting was strictly temporary, and the children were not eligible for adoption or foster care.
The initiative involved close collaboration between Greek and Ukrainian authorities. On the Greek side, this included the Ministry of Migration and Asylum —specifically the -then- Special Secretariat for the Protection of Unaccompanied Minors and the General Secretariat for Reception and Identification— as well as the Ministry for Citizen Protection. These authorities coordinated with Ukraine’s Ministry of Social Policy, the Ukrainian National Social Service, and the Ukrainian Embassy in Athens. The Hellenic Police accompanied the children upon their entry into Greek territory, while authorities in all transit countries were informed, as the transfer was carried out overland. Vehicle support was also offered by members of the Greek diaspora.
Upon arrival at the Promachonas border crossing, the children underwent standard reception procedures applied to all Ukrainian arrivals. In Athens, the NGO Home Project had prepared the accommodation facility in advance and recruited trained staff. Each child received an individualized action plan developed by the hosting organization’s professionals in collaboration with Ukrainian authorities. These plans included school enrollment, integration into recreational activities, and a standardized best interest assessment outlining tailored interventions based on each child’s needs.
While the children quickly learned Greek and integrated into daily life, some challenges emerged. These included managing dual school attendance (Greek schooling during the day and Ukrainian online classes in the evening), frequent changes in the legal representative of the Ukrainian institution, and the need for sustained collaboration with Ukrainian social services for psychosocial support and family contact.
The hosting of the unaccompanied children was led by The Home Project, with support from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), and METAdrasi. In 2025, the children remain under protection and continue to attend school — some in private institutions on full scholarships.
Transfer of vulnerable minors from Gaza (2025)
In late February 2025, after an initial contact from the Greek Embassy in Cairo, the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs arranged the evacuation of a small group of Palestinian children from Gaza, in need of medical attention. The group of 27 consisted of 10 children in need of medical attention, 7 siblings and 10 caregivers. After initial care in the Greek hospital of Cairo, the group was transported to Athens by a special Aegean Airlines flight from Egypt to complete their medical care in Greek public hospitals.[18]
The initial intent of the group is to return to Palestine after the children have finished their medical care (estimated on average at 4-6 months). In the same way as the group from Afghanistan, members of this group have also requested asylum in Greece in order to acquire access to the benefits afforded to asylum seekers in Greece (with an arrangement that their claim will not be processed unless the applicants express their need to remain in Greece).
Due to the need to remain in Athens close to major hospitals, and the lack of urban accommodation for asylum seekers within Athens, accommodation for the group was arranged in the Ministry of Migration and Asylum (MoMA) Closed Controlled Access Centers (C.C.A.C.) in Attiko Alsos, operated by IOM as an AVRR pre-departure facility. The General Secretariat for Vulnerable Persons and Institutional Protection in cooperation with NGOs on the ground (Vela Greece), have been offering childcare, education, and limited legal aid support to the group in the first few weeks after arrival, until the situation becomes clearer.
Conclusions
The above cases showcase Greece’s will to actively respond in humanitarian emergencies and provide protection to vulnerable populations. Such examples make evident that beyond the profound willingness of the Greek state to assist in humanitarian emergencies and its approach which is in harmonization with the international and European legal Aquis and framework, gaps can arise as result of not tailored, pre-formed procedures on needs that are extend beyond the reception and asylum system.
The reliance on ad hoc procedures, dependence on private actors, limited and inconsistent funding, and an overall lack of long-term planning and institutional preparedness may strain public resources and reflect on their efficiency. While these efforts have provided protection, they suggest a need for more structured and sustainable mechanisms for emergency reception and integration. Finally, the overlapping responsibilities between different ministries and state services, (i.e. MoFA and MoMA) create a fragmented landscape and its harmonization can only benefit state’s administration and develop a solid and balanced approach to granting international protection to those in need while relieving pressure from the reception and asylum system.
Situational analysis: Norway
Norway and Greece are situated at two opposite ends of the migration reception scale in Europe, geographically first and foremost, but thereby also in terms of how they can organize their refugee reception capacities. While Greece is situated at the Southeastern border of Europe, being at the frontline of receiving asylum applicants and other migrants arriving in Europe, Norway is situated at the North-Western corner of Europe with accordingly a different opportunity to prepare and pre-declare the number of refugees it is ready to receive every year.
Norway has a long-standing commitment to the international resettlement system, having received refugees since after WWII: first ad-hoc, in a more structured manner since the 1970’s and with an annual quota since the 1980’s. Norway recognizes and supports resettlement as an important mechanism of international protection and durable solutions for refugees. Currently, the annual quota is at 500 resettled refugees per year, after having been between 3.000 and 1.000 in the past two years.[19] This decrease in the quota is mainly attributed to the pressure following the high number of arrivals from Ukraine since 2022.[20] The annual quota is determined by the Norwegian Parliament, the Storting. Then, the Ministry of Justice and Public Security determines which groups to prioritize, taking into account advice of the UNHCR and Norwegian government agencies, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Education and Research, as well as the Directorate of Immigration (UDI) and the Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi).[21] Currently, the priority areas are in Africa and the Middle East and North Africa regions, with some resettlement in the Asia and Pacific region .[22]
Within the overall quota, there are sub-quotas, including: emergency resettlement procedures, medical cases, prioritized profiles (eg. Women at risk, LGBTIQ+ and religious minorities), unaccompanied children, family reunion, and an unallocated quota (mostly dossier submissions). The sub-quotas are then allocated to different refugee groups depending on the UNHCR’s assessment of resettlement needs, among different groups, host countries’ need for burden sharing, experience with cooperation with UNHCR country offices, assessment of vulnerabilities of refugees, and the municipal capacity in Norway to meet the specific needs of the refugees. Also, the possibility to contribute to multinational and European efforts to solve certain situations is considered. [23]
UNHCR then does a pre-selection based on Norway’s criteria and priorities in respective countries of priority. UDI officials then travel to the country in question and conduct their interviews with the pre-selected refugees, before making the final selections.
Norway’s approach to resettling refugees today seeks to find a balance between its international commitments and protection needs, with the integration potential of different groups. This is also reflected in the reception structure: UDI, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, is in charge of the resettlement procedure and follow-up until arrival in Norway. UDI handles the selection of resettled refugees and organizes their journey to Norway, and the host municipality takes over from the reception at the airport. This includes notably identifying and organizing the reception with municipalities ready to receive refugees. The refugees have already been matched with municipalities that have agreed to host them, based on their needs and their social service capacity. It should be noted that the municipalities in Norway are not obliged to accept quota refugees but do so, voluntarily, sometimes they are incentivized by additional benefits offered by the State of Norway.
Normally, when resettled refugees arrive in Norway, they immediately go to the municipality that has accepted to receive them – and do not spend time in any transit centre. IMDi, the Norwegian Directorate of Integration and Diversity, takes care of the follow up procedures from there onwards, including integration mechanisms.
Civil society actors active in the first reception, integration work and legal aid
Some civil society actors play a role in supporting the first reception as well as through different integration initiatives and additional informational resources and legal aid, as a complement to the official program the resettled refugees are part of.
The Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), one of Norway’s oldest humanitarian organizations with international programs across many regions internationally and springing out of the Norwegian Labour movement, has for many years supported the authorities in the first reception of resettled refugees when they arrive at the airport in Oslo. Although representatives from the host municipalities are also there to receive the resettled refugees, NPA staff will be there in support, to provide first information during any possible waiting time, to care for children of large families. In phases of higher numbers of refugee arrivals, they also operated some of the first reception centres, but there is less need for such facilities now.
The Norwegian Red Cross, as a membership driven organization with local chapters across most municipalities in Norway, represents a strong network and an important actor in the integration process of many refugees settling in Norway. Through their refugee guide program, volunteers signing up (and going through a mandatory brief course) will be matched with a refugee, often of a similar age and in similar family situations. Supported by the Red Cross, they are then expected to meet at least twice a month for a period of one year, during which they can meet to do joint activities, and where the refugee guide can also share insights about life in Norway. They can continue to meet beyond the first year if they wish, but then no longer in the framework of the Red Cross program. The Red Cross also organizes languages cafés and similar.
Caritas Norway is another key actor among the civil societies working to support the reception and integration efforts of refugees. While the official program for resettled refugees is already offering the refugees the basics in terms of access to the introduction program and access to a host municipality, and access to local welfare services through that, the information need is often high – among resettled refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants. Caritas works with the government actors at the national registration centre in Råde, as well as through a dedicated resource centre in Oslo, to provide information and administrative assistance to refugees who need it. They may then assist refugees in finding information and in addressing different social services, but letting them do it. Caritas also organizes introductory sessions to Norway’s labor market or tax system, by inviting the relevant authorities to come and explain.
The Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers (NOAS) specializes in providing free legal aid to asylum seekers who have had their applications rejected. After consultation of the respective cases, they may decide to support the asylum applicant in appealing their case. When they do, around 60% of these cases end up being altered. They also have agreements with some lawyers, for the instances where they take a case further to a court. Finally, they also conduct advocacy towards the government and authorities, notably regarding the continued contribution to resettlement programs and prioritizing vulnerable persons.
These NGOs also provide input in the consultations about which groups to prioritize as part of the coming year’s resettlement quota: eg. insisting on prioritizing the most vulnerable, making sure a long-term perspective is adopted, and emphasizing the continued need and advantages of including family reunification as a mechanism.
Conclusions
Based on the practices shared by stakeholders in Norway, it appears that this model ensures that the people who arrive are acknowledged as beneficiaries of international protection and enter directly into the national protection and integration system.
Firstly, the pre-selection process allows for a smooth transition. Resettled individuals immediately gain access to rights and services, including the right to work, which significantly improves their integration prospects from the start. Another critical element is the matching of refugees with municipalities that have expressed their intention and capacity to host them. Finally, Norway’s emphasis on integration from day one, with support from both government actors and civil society, including legal aid, language programs, and mentorship initiatives creates an enabling context for long-term integration. This model demonstrates how strategic planning, stakeholder coordination, and early access to rights can yield beneficial results for both refugees and host communities.
Recommendations
The exchange of expertise between Greece and Norway can provide a solid foundation for Greece to explore the beneficial development of its own sustainable resettlement and humanitarian admission scheme. Such a scheme would have the added value of prioritizing legal, orderly migration, thus creating an alternative to irregular arrivals and providing Greece with an agile tool to plan based on needs and provide international protection to those in need Utilizing Norway’s best practices and lessons learned; Greece can enhance its capacity to provide legal pathways for international protection while contributing to broader EU efforts in migration governance, improved safety and long-term integration planning.
Areas in which the Greek experience and Norway practices can meet in specific actions would include:
- Standardize a humanitarian admission mechanism within the framework of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, as a tool of legal and orderly migration that could be used as a counter-incentive for perilous irregular crossings.
- Use the experience gained from ad-hoc evacuation operations facilitated during emergencies as pilots, for the development of SOPs and readiness of mechanisms in order to avoid overburdening the administration and the asylum system in emergency instances
- Consider a legal/administrative harmonization of the reception system with the possibility of including beneficiaries of humanitarian admission in the overall reception system (housing, welfare, pre-intergation, etc.). The implementation of community sponsorship approaches could also be a way of engaging more community actors in the process to ensure financial sustainability.
- Leverage public support through showing a strong interest in alternative legal pathways & alignment with EU policy priorities, as a tool for long-term planning based on national needs and integration prospects.
- Approach resettlement experiences in countries like Norway as both a tool to contribute to international solidarity mechanisms and to increase planning opportunities and capacities in Greece.
- Consider joining the yearly tripartite consultations in Geneva, between UNHCR, resettlement states and civil society organizations. This is a key meeting place and a potentially useful learning platform, about current needs, how the UNHCR works and how (potential) resettlement states can work as a collective to reduce migration pressures concentrated in some areas.
References
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends.
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-sees-38-drop-irregular-border-crossings-2024-2025-01-24_en#:~:text=Frontex%2C%20the%20European%20Border%20and,compared%20to%20the%20previous%20year.
[4] https://www.iom.int/news/2024-deadliest-year-record-migrants-new-iom-data-reveals.
[5] Ibid.
[6] https://reporting.unhcr.org/global-appeal-2025/outcome-areas/resettlement-and-complementary-pathways.
[7] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0152:FIN:EN:PDF at 15.
[8] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/legal-migration-and-resettlement/resettlement-and-other-pathways-protection_en#:~:text=The%20Union%20Resettlement%20and%20Humanitarian,force%20on%2011%20June%202024.
[9] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1350/oj/eng at Preamble 12.
[10] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/launch-high-level-committee-resettlement-and-humanitarian-admission-2024-11-07_en
[11] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/Resettlement%20pledges%20submitted%20by%20Member%20States%20for%202024-2025_en.pdf
[12] https://reporting.unhcr.org/greece-2015-year-end-report-summary.
[13] https://migration.gov.gr/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ-Α_Δεκέμβριος-2024_ΥΜΑ-GR-Ενημερωτικό-ΔΙΕΘΝΗ-ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑ_ΝΕΟ.pdf.
[14] https://euaa.europa.eu/asylum-report-2024/3141-asylum-applications-capita.
[15] https://migration.gov.gr/synantisi-ypoyrgoy-metanasteysis-kai-asyloy-k-noti-mitaraki-me-tis-exi-gynaikes-afganes-voyleytes-poy-eftasan-to-proi-stin-athina-mazi-me-tis-oikogeneies-toys/
[16] https://www.ekathimerini.com/society/1184366/influential-afghan-women-regrouping-in-greece/
[17] https://migration.gov.gr/eftasan-stin-ellada-apo-tin-oykrania-ta-prota-asynodeyta-paidia-toy-polemoy/.
[18] https://www.mfa.gr/anakoinosi-ypourgeiou-exoterikon-schetika-me-tin-iatriki-ekkenosi-paidion-apo-ti-lorida-tis-gazas-26-02-2025/
[19] UNHCR Norway Fact Sheet, September 2024, https://reliefweb.int/report/norway/unhcr-norway-fact-sheet-september-2024.
[20] Overview of Asylum applications lodged in Norway by Citizenship and month, 2024 (ie. Spontaneous applications, in addition to the resettled refugees): https://www.udi.no/en/statistics-and-analysis/statistics/asylum-applications-lodged-in-norway-by-citizenship-and-month-2024/
[21] Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) Resettlement Definitions: https://www.udi.no/en/word-definitions/resettlement-refugees/#link-4361
[22] UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Norway Chapter, by the Government of Norway, 2021: https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/3c5e59835.pdf
[23] ibid