Protection orientation in the multilateral context

Apart from the IFRC, the two most im­portant UN actors in the field of displacement and migration – the UN High Com­missioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) – have also adopted the RBA. Under this label, all three organisations pursue a needs-based approach that responds to the specific features of mixed movements. They focus less on legal status and more on risks and vulnerabilities that migrants and dis­placed persons face along the route, protec­tion needs, and access to sup­port, information and rights.

At the same time, IFRC, UNHCR and IOM set different priorities in implementing the approach, in line with their respective mandates. Through its Global Route-Based Migration Programme, the IFRC pursues a strictly humanitarian approach centred on providing immediate, accessible aid in the context of mixed movements, irrespective of the legal status of the recipients.

UNHCR understands the RBA as a tool for moving towards a more integrated pro­tection architecture by connecting pro­tection interventions at an early stage and expanding regular pathways. Durable solutions are promoted to ease pressure on host countries along major displacement routes, strengthen international responsibility-sharing, and create safer alternatives to dangerous journeys. The UNHCR empha­sises the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between refugees and migrants, so even in mixed movements, people in need of international protection must have access to asylum procedures and other rights under the Geneva Refugee Convention.

IOM uses the route-based approach primarily as a programmatic framework for bringing together existing measures along key migration routes. Its aim is to establish a governance structure that links protection, data collection, capacity-building, regular mobility, and return and reintegration. IOM also implements specific route-based programmes, in some cases in co­operation with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and Save the Children.

Notably, in addition to its analytical and programmatic functions, the RBA now increasingly serves UN organisations as an institutional and communicative tool. In recent years, UNHCR’s senior leadership has sought to integrate the approach as an in­ternal organising principle. Within the context of the UN80 reform process, which aims to make the UN system more efficient and coherent, the RBA serves UNHCR and IOM as an important instrument for achiev­ing closer alignment of their activities. They have agreed on six joint programmatic pillars of the RBA and are collaborating to map protection and support services along specific routes. Through joint briefings for the European Commission and EU member states, UNHCR and IOM also use the RBA to demonstrate to donors that they are working in close cooperation. The approach thus increasingly serves external communication and strategic resource mobilisation.

A governance logic at EU level

The external dimension of EU migration policy is also increasingly oriented towards migration routes. The European Commission’s action plans for the Western Balkans, the Central Mediterranean, the Western Mediterranean and Atlantic, and the East­ern Mediterranean, developed in 2022 and 2023, all follow the same logic. They seek to advance border management, return co­operation, the fight against migrant smug­gling and human trafficking, and – to a limited extent – regular migration along the main migration routes towards the EU. In the interim, the Whole-of-Route Approach has found its way into further EU strategy documents, including the EU Pact for the Mediterranean (2025) and the Euro­pean Strategy for Asylum and Migration Management (early 2026).

For the Commission, the added value of this approach lies in structuring cooperation with countries of origin and transit and allocating resources along strategically relevant routes. In this perspective, migra­tion routes function primarily as analytical and operational points of reference for curbing irregular movement towards the EU. This logic lies behind the Team Europe Initiatives (TEIs) on the Central Mediterranean and Atlantic/Western Mediterranean routes. The TEIs are designed to pool relevant EU instruments, member state contributions and development-related pro­grammes along selected migration corri­dors. The EU’s migration deals with Tunisia (2023) and Mauritania (2024) emerged against the backdrop of increased movement along the main routes to Europe. The Mauritanian case in particular illustrates how the growing political salience of a spe­cific route – here the West African route to the Canary Islands – can raise a country’s strategic importance in the EU’s external migration policy and reshape both funding allocations and cooperation priorities. The sharp rise in crossings from late 2023 contributed directly to the launch of the €210 million EU–Mauritania Migration Partnership, with significant support directed towards migration management, patrols and border operations.

National variations between control and protection

At the level of individual states, too, it is clear that route-based approaches can be placed at the service of different political objectives. While the German government has not to date made use of the concept, the way other European countries apply it ranges from predominantly control-orient­ed to more protection-oriented interpretations.

The United Kingdom lies at the control end of the spectrum. London supports the EU’s Whole-of-Route Approach and focuses on “upstream cooperation” with countries along relevant migration routes, primarily in order to tackle smuggling networks, prevent irregular onward movement and facilitate returns.

Sweden also uses route-based approaches for control-oriented migration management, but places greater weight on development cooperation instruments. Sweden’s devel­opment cooperation strategy for migration, returns and voluntary return for 2024–2028 represents one such example, for which around €275 million has been made available.

Switzerland has adopted a more protection-oriented interpretation, for example funding the first phase of Save the Chil­dren’s East African Migration Routes Pro­ject, which focuses on protecting migrant children along key mobility corridors in East Africa. Since 2021, Switzerland has also supported the IFRC’s route-based activities.

Denmark occupies an intermediate position. Its Pathways to Protection (P2P) programme, funded by the government with around €53 million over five years, aims to strengthen support and protection along important migration routes towards Europe. At the same time, it is embedded in a political context in which protection along the route is expected to help reduce irregular onward movement.

One approach, two logics

The various ways in which route-based approaches are operationalised reflect an inherent conceptual ambiguity. There is, as yet, neither a generally accepted definition of the concept nor a shared understanding of the associated objectives, instruments and responsibilities. In fact, this openness is a major source of its political appeal, as it allows governments and international organisations to insert the concept flexibly into very different institutional and politi­cal contexts.

Route-based approaches are not by defi­nition either protective or control-oriented. What matters is which objectives they serve, which actors set the priorities, and how securely protection standards, rights and responsibilities are anchored. While humanitarian organisations seek to im­prove protection and support along migra­tion routes, the practical implementation of route-based approaches often prioritises European control interests. Many programmes therefore concentrate on political­ly relevant transit countries and the corre­sponding segments of routes towards Europe, while countries of origin and regional mobility spaces receive less attention.

Route-based approaches thus exemplify a broader development in international migration policy: protection and control are no longer negotiated separately, but brought together within a common programmatic framework. The risk here is that the fun­damental tensions between protection and control become obscured – especially where governments strategically deploy protection-oriented narratives to make up­stream border and migration control measures more politically acceptable.

Increase the coherence of German refugee and migration policy

The ongoing reorientation of German humanitarian assistance and development cooperation offers an opportunity to more systematically address a structural problem in the country’s refugee and migration policy. Germany is present along key migra­tion routes with a broad repertoire of in­struments for humanitarian assistance, disaster risk reduction, climate adaptation, development cooperation, migration diplo­macy, border management and skilled labour migration. These instruments serve different and, at times, competing interests, but are rarely aligned as part of a coherent overall approach. This inevitably creates tensions between policy objectives.

Applying a route-based logic does not mean replacing country-based and sectoral programmes with route-based measures. Instead, route-based approaches can reveal where protection risks and mobility dyna­mics transcend national contexts. A system­atic mapping of German engagement along selected migration corridors could provide a basis for addressing gaps, overlaps and contradictions in a targeted and coor­dinat­ed manner.

The relevance of a route-based perspective extends well beyond dealing with movements towards the EU. A large pro­portion of global displacement and migra­tion takes place in South-South contexts, for example in the Horn of Africa or the Sahel. Especially where conflict-induced displacement overlaps with climate-change-related mobility and labour migration, route-based approaches can help to identify shifts in mobility patterns, strengthen local reception capacities and promote regional solutions, instead of treating irregular migration primarily as a European govern­ance problem.

Make EU migration cooperation more partnership-oriented

In shaping the EU’s Whole-of-Route Ap­proach, the German government should work to ensure that the interests and burdens of partner countries are adequately taken into account – especially those that host large numbers of refugees, migrants and internally displaced persons while also being strongly affected by climate change. Their often limited capacities are further strained by cooperation arrangements that focus one-sidedly on return and border management. Development cooperation can make an important contribution by supporting host communities and promoting durable solutions – for instance through investment in public services and livelihoods, and by supporting safe and regular educational and labour mobility.

At the same time, for all the potential of route-based cooperation to improve migra­tion management one must not forget that migration diplomacy requires clear bounda­ries. Just because a state lies on an im­portant route does not mean that investing in a partnership makes sense. Where cooperation with repressive or autocratic states is precluded on human rights grounds, it must not be legitimised in the name of migration management.

Hold UN organisations to account

In the UN context, Germany should use its political and financial leverage vis-à-vis IOM and UNHCR – bilaterally and at EU level – to ensure that the RBA does not primarily serve to mobilise resources, but instead aligns protection and support services with changing needs along individual mobility trajectories. This requires a fundamental change in the established working methods of international organisations. In this spirit, the German government should use the UN80 process to call for more binding stan­dards for route-based programmes: joint data collection and analysis, a trans­parent and coordinated division of labour, and verifiable protection indicators. This should be flanked by systematic monitoring and evaluation components to assess the RBA’s actual added value in practice.

Consistently include internal displacement

If the RBA is to create synergies between refugee and migration policy, it must also include issues that are lacking an institutional home at UN level, above all climate-change-related mobility and internal displacement. Internal and cross-border displacement are closely linked: countries with high numbers of internally displaced persons regularly feature among the most important countries of origin of asylum-seekers in Germany. At the same time, many key migration routes run through countries that are themselves heavily affect­ed by internal displacement while also hosting large numbers of refugees, such as Sudan or Ethiopia. The German government should use the debate on route-based approaches to keep the chronically neglect­ed issue of internal displacement on the political agenda.

Involve local actors substantively

Finally, when funding relevant programmes, Germany should ensure that local NGOs, municipalities and migrant-led organisations as well as migrants, displaced persons and host communities are not merely consulted, but actively involved in plan­ning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This is a matter of effectiveness as well as parti­cipation. Local actors often have more detailed knowledge of mobility patterns, risks, informal support structures and actual needs on the ground. Without their involvement, there is a risk that programmes will fail to take local realities into account, while creating additional coordi­nation burdens.