This article is part of the blog series “Who, What, and How Much Does Temporary Protection Protect?” and edited by Ibrahim Soysüren. It builds on presentations from a workshop which had the same title and held on 9 December 2023 in Izmir and jointly organised by the NCCR On the Move, the Institute of Sociology of the University of Neuchâtel, and the Izmir Bar Association.
The article analyses the implementation of the European Union’s Temporary Protection Mechanism for Ukrainians in the Netherlands and highlights the legal and humanitarian challenges it poses. In its final section, it examines the Dutch case in comparison with the temporary protection scheme in Turkey.
Temporary Protection of Ukrainian Refugees in the Netherlands: Insights and Lessons
Orçun Ulusoy
Context and Challenges
As of January 2025, the Netherlands hosts approximately 140,000 Ukrainian refugees, placing it among the leading host countries in the European Union (EU). Although the numbers are smaller compared to countries like Poland or Turkey (Syrians), the arrival of forced migrants has exposed significant structural weaknesses within the Dutch system, particularly concerning housing, healthcare, and education. These sectors, already strained by domestic challenges, struggled to accommodate the needs of displaced Ukrainians, highlihgting the gaps in the preparedness to deal with large-scale immigration.
The arrival of Ukrainian refugees intensified the challenge of balancing immediate humanitarian assistance with sustainable long-term integration. The Dutch government, already contending with a housing crisis, expanded temporary shelters and tasked municipalities with addressing the unprecedented demand. While necessary, these measures emphasized the importance of adaptable and coordinated governance. Furthermore, collaboration with the EU to revise legal frameworks underscored the value of flexible policymaking during crises. However, this experience has revealed areas needing improvement to enhance resilience against future displacement crises.
Temporary Protection Mechanism in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, temporary protection for individuals is carried out under the framework of the EU Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC), which is activated in cases of a mass influx of displaced persons. While this Directive has been seldomly used, such as during the crisis resulting from the war in Ukraine, it complements the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which governs the processing of individual asylum claims under EU law.
Individuals under temporary protection receive residence permits and have access to healthcare, education, and employment opportunities, as established under the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000) and related national policies. They also benefit from extensive integration measures, such as language training, housing assistance, and job programs, under Dutch integration legislation such as the Civic Integration Act (Wet Inburgering).
Policy Framework and Registration Process
Under emergency legislation, the Netherlands assigned responsibility for accommodating asylum applicants and individuals under temporary protection to its 342 municipalities. Registration begins at local municipal offices, where personal details are added to the Personal Records Database (BRP). Refugees formalize their status through the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) using the M35H application form. This process grants temporary residency status and access to essential services, including employment.
Housing: Addressing the Crisis
The housing landscape reflects the intersection of refugee needs and existing societal challenges. Alongside the 140,000 Ukrainian refugees, the Netherlands accommodates 60,000 asylum seekers, with only 30,000 permanent housing spots available in existing accommodation centers. To address the shortfall, the government declared a state of emergency, creating additional 20,000 temporary housing units using prefabricated structures and repurposed buildings such as schools and offices.
Despite these measures, the focus remains on temporary shelters, leaving long-term solutions underdeveloped. Stakeholders emphasize the need for scalable, sustainable housing initiatives that balance immediate needs with future demands.
Education: Key to Integration
Children of Ukrainian refugees have the right to education in the Netherlands. Volunteers and local authorities assist with enrolment. A two-step integration model— initially enrolling children in schools designed for non-native Dutch speakers before transferring them to regular educational programs— promotes linguistic and cultural adaptation.
Nearly all school-age children are enrolled in Dutch schools, with some simultaneously attending online Ukrainian education. Adults display motivation to learn Dutch, although many prioritize English due to its global utility and relevance to return migration.
Healthcare: Comprehensive but Uneven Access
Ukrainian refugees are entitled to healthcare services regardless of their insurance status. The Medical Care for Displaced Persons from Ukraine Regulation (RMO), implemented since July 2022, ensures refugees access to general practitioners, specialists, and hospitals without incurring costs. However, despite prominent mental health challenges, service utilization is limited due to barriers such as unfamiliarity with the healthcare system and language difficulties.
Employment: Progress and Challenges
Under the Temporary Protection Directive, Ukrainian refugees are allowed to work in the Netherlands without the need for a work permit. Employers only have to notify the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) upon hiring a refugee. This simplified process encompasses all forms of employment, including internships and voluntary roles, effectively removing bureaucratic hurdles.
Approximately 50% of working-age Ukrainian refugees are currenly employed, a figure surpassing other refugee groups in the Netherlands. Many find jobs in labour-shortage sectors like hospitality, logistics, and healthcare. However, the majority work below their qualifications, often earning minimum wage in temporary or part-time jobs.
Challenges persist, particularly regarding language barriers and the non-recognition of Ukrainian qualifications. These issues frequently confine refugees to low-skilled positions, contributing to their economic vulnerability. Reports also highlight risks of exploitation, including inadequate awareness of labour rights and precarious employment conditions.
Comparative Reflections as Conclusion
The Dutch approach to managing the Ukrainian refugee influx offers valuable insights. By decentralizing responsibilities to municipalities, the Netherlands has enabled tailored local responses, while national oversight and EU collaboration ensure consistency. However, persistent challenges, notably in housing and long-term integration, highlight the need for scalable solutions and proactive governance. The experience underscores the importance of balancing immediate humanitarian aid with sustainable integration strategies.
When compared to Turkey, which hosts significantly higher numbers of refugees under greater structural strain, the Netherlands demonstrates the benefits of scalable and collaborative approaches. Turkey’s temporary protection system, designed to address the Syrian refugee crisis, is heavily crisis-driven, focusing on managing large-scale influxes with limited emphasis on long-term integration. In contrast, the Netherlands integrates temporary protection within its well-established asylum framework, further supported by EU-wide initiatives such as relocation schemes[1]. This model highlights the value of collective and coordinated responses to refugee crises.
Hosting a smaller refugee population provides the Netherlands with the advantage of offering resource-intensive and targeted support, making migration management relatively easier. Conversely, Turkey’s massive refugee burden strains its infrastructure, relying on informal economies and community networks. Sociopolitical implications also differ: the Netherlands faces challenges in fostering societal integration, while Turkey must navigate the complexities of large-scale displacement without sufficient international support mechanisms.
The Netherlands’ approach excels in areas such as healthcare access and employment opportunities but must address the long-term sustainability of its reliance on temporary housing and low-wage jobs. Turkey’s crisis-driven approach underscores the complexities of managing large-scale refugee influxes but could benefit from greater emphasis on sustainable solutions and international cooperation.
Both countries demonstrate the urgent need for scalable, equitable solutions tailored to their unique challenges. Deeper reflection on cross-border cooperation, innovation in refugee policy and long-term planning is essential to build resilient systems capable of addressing future displacement crises.
[1] The EU Relocation Scheme is a mechanism designed to distribute asylum seekers more evenly among European Union (EU) member states. It aims to ease the burden on countries that receive a disproportionately high number of refugees, such as Italy and Greece, by transferring eligible asylum seekers to other EU countries where their applications will be processed.
Orçun Ulusoy is a researcher affiliated with Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, a member of the GAR, and a board member of the Izmir Association for Solidarity with Refugees (Mülteci-Der).
* The ideas and opinions expressed in GAR Blog publications are those of the authors; they do not reflect those of the Association for Migration Research.
** The image created by ChatGPT
