Laura Lo Castro: “The Convention still remains alive and necessary today”

As the Refugee Convention marks its 75^th anniversary on 28 July 2026, Laura Lo Castro, UNHCR Representative in Greece, spoke to News 24/7 and journalist Christos Demetis about the Convention’s enduring relevance, today’s challenges, and the continued need to protect people forced to flee their homes.

Looking back, what do you consider to be the greatest achievement of UNHCR and the Geneva Convention over these past 75 years?

That it has saved millions of lives. For 75 years, the 1951 Refugee Convention has embodied a simple but powerful promise: people escaping danger should not be sent back to harm and should be treated with dignity and humanity.

The Refugee Convention has transformed protection from an act of charity into a matter of rights and responsibility. It gave legal meaning to the idea that when someone is forced to flee, they do not cease to be a rights-holder. They remain entitled to safety, due process, documentation, work, education and family life. Across generations and continents, UNHCR has been the guardian of the Convention, helping ensure that its principles are not only enshrined in law but translated into reality for people in need of international protection.

How has the profile of people seeking protection today changed compared to 1951? Does the Convention adequately cover new threats, such as climate-induced displacement?

People seeking protection today are still forced to flee because of persecution, violence, conflict and serious human rights violations as in 1951. The scale and complexity of displacement have though increased, with many people experiencing multiple, overlapping risks.

The drafters of the Refugee Convention understood that future challenges could not be predicted in advance. Rather than creating a rigid instrument, they established a set of enduring principles, centred on protection, non-refoulement and fundamental rights, that could be applied to changing circumstances. This adaptability is one of the reasons the Convention has remained relevant for 75 years.

Climate change adds a new layer of complexity. Most people displaced by disasters and climate-related events remain within their own countries and therefore fall outside the scope of the Refugee Convention. However, when climate-related displacement is compounded by conflicts pushing people to cross national borders with possible even loss of nationality (statelessness), refugee law will apply. The Convention was not designed specifically to address climate-induced displacement, but its principles continue to provide an important framework for protection.

The challenge today is not that the Convention has become obsolete, but that seeking asylum has become one of the very few available routes for many people fleeing extreme deprivation and seeking a better life to migrate. The Convention must be complemented with legal pathways for migration in order to maintain the integrity of the asylum procedures.

Finally, what has really changed is the misinformation when it comes to refugees and migrants, the politicization of the issue of migration and the gradual loss of the principles that inspired the Convention 75 years ago.

Despite this anniversary, we are witnessing a global trend toward border tightening and challenges to the right to asylum. Is UNHCR concerned about the gradual erosion of the Geneva principles by modern governments?

Yes, we are concerned. The right to seek asylum is under pressure in many parts of the world. We see increasing attempts to externalize responsibility, restrict access to territory, use detention as a deterrent, criminalize irregular movement and humanitarian work, or present asylum as a security problem rather than a legal and humanitarian obligation.

States have the right to manage their borders. But border management must be compatible with international law. The central principle of the Convention, non-refoulement, is not optional: people must not be returned to a place where they face threats to their life or freedom.

The strength of the Refugee Convention lies precisely in its ability to provide a framework that combines state sovereignty with respect for fundamental rights.

How can the gap be bridged between states’ need to secure their borders and their obligation to ensure human dignity?

The two are not mutually exclusive. A state can have secure and well-managed borders while also ensuring that people who may need international protection have access to fair asylum procedures.

Most importantly, we need to de-link in the public discourse the refugee issue to the security one. Refugees are people seeking safety and wishing to contribute to host societies. Insecurity is mostly an internal issue for all countries, with deep social roots that extend far beyond the relatively few refugees they host.

The key is to move away from false choices. It is not “security or protection.” It is both. Effective border management should include identification, registration, screening, referral of vulnerable people, access to asylum, and safeguards against return to danger. These systems protect states, host communities and refugees alike.

Greece has been at the forefront of the refugee issue for many years. How do you assess the cooperation between UNHCR, the Greek authorities and Greek society within the framework of the Convention’s principles?

Greece has played a central role in refugee protection in Europe, particularly during and after the 2015–2016 emergency. It has carried a disproportionate responsibility as a country at the EU’s external borders, and Greek society has shown remarkable solidarity at critical moments.

UNHCR has been present in Greece since 1952, and our role has evolved significantly over time. After the emergency years, the Greek State progressively assumed greater responsibility for reception, asylum and integration systems. UNHCR’s role today is to support national authorities, municipalities, civil society, refugee communities and other partners to strengthen protection, improve access to rights, and promote sustainable solutions.

Cooperation has been constructive and results-oriented. There has been important progress in areas such as asylum capacity, access to education, protection of unaccompanied children, and inclusion in employment initiatives. At the same time, challenges remain in several areas.

Greek society is also an essential part of the picture. Local communities, teachers, employers, NGOs, volunteers, municipalities and refugee-led organizations have often made the difference between mere survival and the possibility of rebuilding a life. The Convention’s principles are not implemented only in ministries or courtrooms. They are also lived in schools, workplaces, neighbourhoods and public services.

If you could set one core priority for UNHCR as it enters its next quarter-century, what would it be?

The priority must be solutions. Protection remains the foundation of everything we do. But protection cannot stop at survival. Too many refugees remain trapped in uncertainty for years, dependent on humanitarian aid, unable to return home safely, unable to move elsewhere legally, and unable to fully rebuild their lives where they are.

We need a major shift from short-term emergency responses to sustainable inclusion and solutions. That means for the international community to bring solutions to the conflicts that generate forced displacement in order to ensure voluntary, safe and dignified returns of refugees to the countries of origin; expanding resettlement and other complementary pathways; and helping refugees become self-reliant where they live through access to education, employment, housing, health care and documentation.

As we shift from emergency management to the need for social integration, what are the greatest challenges that recognized refugees face in Greece today?

Recognized refugees in Greece often face a difficult transition. Once refugee status is granted, they are expected to become self-reliant very quickly. But in practice, access to housing, employment, language learning, documentation and social services can be extremely challenging. From our monitoring work and discussions with refugees, main obstacles include access to stable and affordable housing, Greek language learning, administrative complexity and employment barriers (eg access to tax numbers, social security, bank accounts and other documentation, recognition of qualifications, lack of networks and limited childcare options).

Integration is not automatic. It requires investment, coordination and time. But it is also one of the best investments a host country can make, particularly countries in Europe suffering from human capital’s deficit. Refugees bring skills, resilience and experience. An essential workforce for Europe. According to UNHCR Greece data, 50 per cent of refugees surveyed had completed secondary education and 17 per cent had tertiary education, yet around half were reportedly out of work. This points not to a lack of potential, but to barriers that can and should be addressed.

An unprecedented funding shortfall recently forced UNHCR to scale back its integration services and close field operations in several Greek islands and regions. How is this financial crisis impacting your humanitarian work on the ground, and what are the risks for vulnerable populations?

The impact is serious and very concrete. Funding cuts mean fewer services, fewer staff, less presence in the field, and less support for people who are already in extremely vulnerable situations.

In Greece, abrupt funding cuts of more than 50 per cent in 2025 directly affected programmes and services. Support for survivors of violence against women and children, in-person interpretation, psychosocial support helplines, and many youth self-reliance and child protection activities ceased. Legal assistance, employability services and remote interpretation continued, but with very limited capacity and geographic coverage.

However, UNHCR’s role in technical support, policy advisory, coordination and advocacy remains necessary to strengthen national systems for asylum and inclusion.

Misinformation often shapes public perception, fueling myths that refugees drain public resources or pose a threat to local cultures. How does UNHCR actively counter these narratives, and what is the real impact of refugees on the economies and social fabric of host countries like Greece?

Misinformation is one of the most damaging forces in public debate on refugees. It reduces complex human realities to fear, stereotypes and political slogans. UNHCR works to counter this in several ways: by providing accurate information, sharing evidence, supporting responsible reporting, amplifying refugee voices, engaging with both refugee and host communities, and highlighting real examples of coexistence and contribution.

The reality is that refugees are not just recipients of support; they are also workers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers and community members. When given the opportunity to learn the language, find work and rebuild their lives, they contribute to local economies, help address labour shortages and strengthen social cohesion.

The most effective antidote to misinformation is contact with the person. When people meet the refugee colleague, the refugee student, the refugee business owner, the refugee parent at school, the myths become harder to sustain.

Against such a bleak geopolitical backdrop, where do you personally, and your colleagues in the field, find the hope to continue this work every day?

We find hope in people. In refugees who have lost almost everything and still find the strength to start again. In parents who learn a new language so they can help their children at school. In young people who arrive after years of disruption and still dream of becoming doctors, teachers, engineers or artists. In survivors of violence who slowly regain trust and dignity.

We also find hope in the people who stand beside them: Greek teachers who welcome refugee children into classrooms; doctors and social workers who go beyond their formal duties; mayors and local communities that choose solidarity over fear; employers who give someone a first chance; civil society organizations and volunteers who continue even when resources are scarce and the value of their work is unfairly questioned or misunderstood.

The needs are high, the politics are often difficult, and the funding situation is deeply worrying. But every time someone receives protection, finds a job, enrols a child in school, reunites with family, or simply feels safe for the first time in years, we are reminded why the Convention still remains alive and necessary today.