4.7.2.3. Working together with other stakeholders

Several Member States reached out to additional and new stakeholders to ensure accommodation for persons in need of temporary protection.620  For example, a new reception model was introduced in Finland for beneficiaries of temporary protection, where people who have fled Ukraine could receive accommodation from a municipality without a reception centre being established there. The Finnish Immigration Service compensates municipalities for the costs.621 These new ways of cooperation may provide an example of collaborative models for the reception of beneficiaries of international protection

To address the critical shortages in reception places, Fedasil continued its quest to strengthen cooperation with private operators and launched a new public procurement in October 2022 (see Section 4.7.2.1).622 Belgian municipalities made their structures available for persons in need of temporary protection, but this limited the number of available structures to increase reception capacity for beneficiaries of international protection. In Jabbeke, the mayor prohibited the use of a site due to health concerns, but this decision was overturned by the Council of State, noting that the State Secretary for Asylum and Migration and Fedasil had addressed these concern in an appropriate manner. The Tribunal of First Instance in Brussels decided in favour of local authorities that took legal action to close the reception centre in Molenbeek due to urban planning. Fedasil appealed the decision.623

The Austrian federal parliament approved an amendment to the agreement between the federal state and the provinces, and as a result, financing for people in reception was increased as of March 2022.624  The pressure on the reception system led to more tensions between the federal and provincial levels, debating issues of responsibility to provide reception for applicants for international protection, ensuring an adequate number of places and financing the costs of the additional places.

In the Netherlands, security regions stepped in to open and manage crisis reception facilities.625  This alleviated some of the immediate reception needs but did not lead to a structural solution for the shortage in reception capacity. Municipalities were often reluctant to open new facilities due to funding and modalities, requirements on the number of applicants to be hosted and a lack of clarity over long-term contracts. In addition, cooperation with municipalities was sometimes challenging due to the disruptive behaviour of a few applicants in some localities and the negative image this created in national press (see Section 4.7.3.1).

The Portuguese High Commission for Migration signed a new set of protocols for cooperation in the reception and integration of beneficiaries of international protection with various organisations, including the Child Support Association, ADOLESCERE Association, São José Workshops, Braga Delegation of the Portuguese Red Cross and the São José Youth Centre. The protocols focused especially on support to Afghans with special needs or vulnerabilities.626

Italian NGOs developed a publicly-available database which maps reception facilities in the country, showing their capacity, occupancy, typology and average costs.627