Dutch Asylum Reception Agency Reports Community Cooperation Despite Initial Resistance
Netherlands, 20 March 2026
The Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers reveals that whilst new centres faced significant community opposition during opening, local cooperation and connections subsequently developed once facilities were established.
COA Reflects on Challenging Year of Expansion
The Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) has described 2025 as an ‘intense year’ characterised by the establishment of new asylum reception locations throughout the Netherlands [1]. In its year-end reflection, the agency acknowledged that many new facilities opened ‘under great societal pressure’, yet emphasised a consistent pattern: once reception centres were operational, cooperation, involvement, and connections with local communities emerged [1]. The agency highlighted that working in asylum reception is ‘never boring and always special’, underscoring the meaningful nature of the work despite facing considerable challenges during what it termed a particularly busy and eventful year [1].
Municipal Elections Reveal Anti-Asylum Sentiment Across Netherlands
The political landscape surrounding asylum reception became starkly evident during the municipal elections held on 18 March 2026, where local and national parties successfully campaigned against housing asylum seekers across numerous municipalities [2]. Forum voor Democratie (FvD) secured a total of 299 seats across over 100 municipalities, promising ‘hier geen azc’ (no asylum centre here) [2]. Notable victories included T@B receiving 35% of votes in Hardinxveld-Giessendam, De Lokale Volkspartij winning 4 seats in Rhenen, and Gemeentebelang Harderwijk-Hierden gaining six councillors [2]. This anti-asylum sentiment was particularly pronounced in Ridderkerk, where the 18Plus party, which had launched a campaign in May 2025 to prevent a new asylum centre, won 12 of 29 seats [2]. The party’s leader, Henk van Os, stated post-victory that he would not join a college that approves a new asylum centre, declaring: ‘We did more than necessary in recent years, and that was always on a voluntary basis. We now want an exceptional position in return. Let other municipalities now take their responsibility’ [2].
Local Resistance Shapes Political Outcomes
The impact of asylum-related decisions on local politics became evident through specific electoral outcomes across various municipalities. In Brummen, the VVD gained 3 seats after campaigning against a large asylum centre, whilst Lokaal Belang lost over 40% of their votes after pushing through plans for an asylum centre accommodating 350 people [2]. Similarly, in Uden, coalition parties lost 3 seats after approving asylum plans, whilst Forum voor Democratie gained 2 seats [2]. Political scientist Simon Otjes from Leiden University observed that the Distribution Act (Spreidingswet) had placed local politics under significant pressure, leading to widespread resistance [2]. The absence of national parties in municipal elections provided an advantage to local parties opposing asylum reception, with examples including Helder Helmond becoming the largest party with nearly a fifth of the votes [2].
Specific Cases Highlight Community Tensions and Contractual Complexities
Several municipalities demonstrated the complex dynamics between legal obligations and local opposition. In Goes, the emergency accommodation at Hotel Van der Valk was approved in late 2023 to house 350 asylum seekers, with potential expansion to 450 if inflow remained high, under a contract valid until 1 January 2029 [4]. The local party Nieuw Goes positioned itself as the only party opposing all proposals for new permanent asylum centres, arguing that Goes had ‘done more than enough’ regarding asylum reception over the past 15 years [4]. In Oldebroek, where the municipal council consists of 19 councillors, parties were required to find approximately 140 reception places in 2026 under the Distribution Act [3]. The ABO party stated: ‘As long as the Distribution Act is in force, we have the legal obligation to receive asylum seekers. This means that we have to find approximately 140 reception places this year’ [3]. Meanwhile, government parties D66, VVD, and CDA stated on 19 March 2026 that they were not open to negotiations, whilst COA anticipated a shortage of ‘thousands of places’ this spring [2]. The situation was further complicated by revelations that locations in Hardenberg and Epe remained open longer than agreed, potentially resulting in fines for COA [2].