What is a “route-based approach” for refugees and migrants?

11 November 2025

This story was originally published by The New Humanitarian.

By Irwin Loy

The right to seek asylum is under growing interrogation around the globe as borders and public sentiment harden.

Can a new UN agency strategy – which mixes nuts-and-bolts assistance and refugee protection with advocacy on migration processes, borders, and even returns – be part of the answer?

The UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, is pushing what it calls a “route-based approach”, along with its UN cousins, the International Organization for Migration or IOM. It stresses that refugees and migrants often cross borders together using the same routes and networks – which means solutions must account for both, up and down the system and along the route.

“At the core of this approach,” a UNHCR policy document states, “is a shift towards more humane and effective responses, concrete actions to counter smuggling and trafficking, and delivering better outcomes for those on the move, affected communities, and states alike.”

But some observers question whether the prominence of things like border control and returns is more focused on addressing xenophobic anxieties in the Global North. Some refugee leaders see a larger global shift towards policies aimed at stopping people from moving, instead of helping them survive when they do.

Elizabeth Tan, UNHCR’s director of international protection, says the route-based approach still aims to respond to urgent emergency needs, improve rights for refugees and asylum seekers, strengthen asylum systems, and advocate to share responsibility for hosting refugees (the vast majority live in countries in the Global South).

But there is a key goal in talking more explicitly about migration issues. “We want to make that distinction that refugees are not migrants,” Tan said.

In an interview with The New Humanitarian, Tan outlined what’s different about the route-based approach (and what’s not), why it’s important to talk about returning home, and why she believes discussing both migrants and refugees can ultimately help to protect asylum when it’s under threat.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The New Humanitarian: When I read about the route-based approach, it seems really familiar. It sounds like older ideas like protection in the region; it talks about mixed migration, which is something everyone has talked about for a long time. How big a shift is it in practice?

Elizabeth Tan: First of all, I’m fully in agreement with you that none of this is new. We’ve been trying for a long time to widen resettlement and opportunities for people. But bringing it together and really insisting that if you only tackle one side it’s not going to work, I think it’s a little bit new…

What’s now changed for UNHCR is that we’re being much more deliberate in our way of communicating that refugees are not migrants. Refugees can’t go home. Migrants: They may not want to go home, but they can go home without suffering persecution or war.

And that is a difference that we have to bring to the forefront. That’s not to say that migrants don’t suffer from the same issues of trafficking or exploitation when they move, or that they wouldn’t suffer some kind of hardship if they went home.

But that is something that we’re speaking out much more loudly about, because there is a tendency from states and others to mix the two. The asylum system is not designed to deal with migration. And that is a real danger. And that’s of course what we see with countries closing their border…

Some of the legal responses, also, we’re putting them to the forefront more deliberately. So for example, someone who has gone through the asylum system and who is not in need of international protection, has had their case heard in a fair manner: The country that’s heard the claim has the right to send that person back to their country of origin – including by force if that’s necessary. That’s not the preferred option. It is better for someone to go back voluntarily and to be assisted in that process. But it is important for the credibility of the asylum system, that failed asylum seekers, that the state has the right to send those people home.

And we also speak up more about that need to protect the asylum system. There’s a lot of talk about migrants abusing the asylum system and so on – that’s not helpful to refugees who really need protection. And then the last component around that legal part is that refugees themselves also don’t have the right to choose where they want to live in the world. They have a right to be protected against refoulement to a country where they would face persecution or war. And so that usually will be in the region where they’re from. So, that onward movement of refugees is also something that is not protected in the refugee convention, and it’s something which states have the right to manage, but that needs to be done in a way that protects their rights.

The New Humanitarian: Reading some of the documents about the route-based approach, I was struck by the language. One document calls it “a shift towards more humane and effective response, and concrete actions to counter smuggling and trafficking”. Is it UNHCR’s role to be countering smuggling and trafficking?

Tan: It’s not our role. That is the role of states. But you’ve heard that this is one of the main arguments that states make: that they want to stop smuggling of people and exploitation. I’m not sure that that’s the main reason they want to avoid people coming to their country. But that is a sovereign right. Trafficking in people is clearly not okay, and there are laws and countries should cooperate. But that’s certainly not our role.…

The rescue of people at sea – regardless of whether they are refugees, asylum seekers, migrants – that should be the basic. People should be rescued from drowning, from starving, or dying in the desert or in the Darién Gap – states have an obligation to rescue people and to safeguard life. What happens is that there’s a refusal to do this because they don’t want to bring people to their own country. I’m talking here, in particular, about what’s happening in the Mediterranean, but other parts of the world as well, where people are simply left to perish.

So, clearly there, we speak out and we speak out for all people that are smuggled on those kinds of routes. We do speak out about smuggling and trafficking because we see the harm that that causes, but it’s not our job to stop it, for sure.

The New Humanitarian: Maybe it’s just the way it’s written, but it feels like that element is baked into the literature around the route-based approach and how it’s being talked about. The strategy seems quite focused on the needs of countries in the Global North: It’s seen as countries in the Global North urging countries in the Global South to stop refugees or migrants from reaching them. So that sort of shift seems notable and that’s why it’s been criticised. Do you have a comment on that?

Tan: I get it and I think that I also struggle with that component. Our purpose is not to reduce the number of asylum seekers arriving in the US, or in Germany, or in the UK – that’s not our purpose. In fact, we advocate that they hear the asylum claims of people who arrive on their territory.

On the other hand, you hear us talking all the time about the inadequacy of the support for refugees who are in the Global South. It is unconscionable that people in Chad have insufficient water, are not supported to move away from the border where they’re actually at risk of being attacked, and so on. We talk about that all the time. So, they’re not two separate issues. They are part of the same problem of responsibility sharing.

We’re still telling countries like Australia, like the US, like the UK – who have done some form of externalisation, or who have tried to implement certain policies – that that is not the way to go about it. We’re asking for a more balanced approach: one that supports refugees where they are, that doesn’t also oblige refugees to move onwards.

If they’re able to move onwards and contribute towards the economy of another country, all the better. But it’s not the responsibility of one country. It’s not through that accident of geography of being a neighbour to a country that’s at war or where people are persecuted, that therefore you need to shoulder the whole burden.

The New Humanitarian: Is this partially a fundraising thing? Given the issues with everyone’s budgets these days, it feels like it’s also speaking to the typical donor states, saying: “This is where we believe we can be most effective. Will you fund us for this?” Is this making UNHCR more fundable in today’s context?

Tan: Honestly, I wouldn’t see it as a fundraising thing… We are very concerned that the 1951 [refugee] convention and the concept of asylum is being questioned.

Some countries [are] saying that the 1951 convention is no longer fit for purpose and so on, so there’s a real risk that refugees won’t receive protection. If countries in the Global North do that – throw out the convention – countries in the Global South may as well, and then we’re really in trouble in terms of protecting the human rights and the ability of refugees to seek asylum. So for me anyway, that’s what it’s about…

I am concerned that a lot of our allies and friends in the refugee protection sphere are worried that we are somehow giving away the mandate, or giving away refugee protection – that we’re not being strong enough.

In fact, we want to make that distinction that refugees are not migrants. This is one of the big concerns that I have, that the general public sees these things as mixed. I think there’s a deliberate attempt on the part of some to mix the issues so that it seems like, “We’re being overwhelmed by all these foreigners. They’re all claiming to be asylum seekers and it’s not even true.” And that’s a very dangerous thing for refugees worldwide.

The New Humanitarian: What’s the ask here, whether it be of donors or member states? What are the next steps?

I know [the many things we’re asking for] can’t all happen at once, but I’m responsible for protection, so: If we don’t have adequate asylum systems in all countries, including in countries like the US, if there’s no investment in that process, then of course, people are going to say it’s broken. But similarly, in countries in the Global South that [have] inadequate and – in some circumstances – not fair asylum systems, that needs to be fixed so that we can identify who really does need that international protection.

Very urgently right now, we need humanitarian assistance for the large number of refugees and asylum seekers who are in countries that are hosting hundreds of thousands of people. If you look at Chad, Ethiopia, South Sudan – so many countries.

And then, for these situations that have gone on for a very long time – protracted situations – it needs a different approach. It’s not handouts; it is really about giving people autonomy so that they can look after themselves… that they can access the labour market, they have freedom of movement, they can put their kids into local schools, and they can really integrate. That doesn’t mean that all that burden should go on that host country, but that needs support.

And it’s not through UNHCR that that support can be realised. It needs to be proper development assistance. Hosting refugees is a global good. It shouldn’t be sort of divided up into this country, or that type. This should be seen as a global good – protecting people from harm – and so that should be financed globally.

Edited by Andrew Gully.

–––––

The New Humanitarian puts quality, independent journalism at the service of the millions of people affected by humanitarian crises around the world. Find out more at www.thenewhumanitarian.org.