Syria: humanitarian aid in the face of a bloodless country and an uncertain future

Photo of PUI during a visit to Syria in January 2025

December 2024. The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, after fourteen years of war, marks a major turning point for Syria. Power collapsed in a matter of days under the assault of rebel forces led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Cham (HTC) group, leaving the way open for an uncertain political transition. The establishment of an interim government, led by Ahmad al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammed al-Joulani), and the adoption of a provisional constitution in March 2025 are seen as steps forward, but they are not enough to meet the country’s immediate challenges: political instability, community and sectarian tensions, a lasting humanitarian crisis and large-scale reconstruction.

Syrians celebrated the end of the regime, but woke up a month later to an unchanged reality: a country in ruins, with no resources, and an uncertain future,’ observes Charlotte Baudoin, of the NGO Première Urgence Internationale.

On 30 March, Ahmad al-Sharaa, the interim president, announced a new Syrian transitional government composed mainly of his loyalists but including 4 ministers from minorities, a Christian, a Druze, an Alawite and a Kurd among its 23 members. The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (editor’s note: autonomous Syrian Kurdish authority) declared that this government did not reflect the diversity and plurality of the country and that it was therefore not concerned by the government’s decisions! It should also be remembered that Ahmad al-Sharaa has full legislative, executive and judicial powers, and that he chairs the ‘National Security Council’, considered by some to be the country’s real government. The future will tell whether the promise of a representative, unitary government that respects minorities has been kept or not. That is the challenge after 14 years of war.

In this context, humanitarian action is more necessary than ever, but its new framework for intervention is still unclear. Some had hoped that the end of the regime would facilitate access to relief supplies. However, as Thomas Janny of the NGO Solidarités International points out, guaranteed access has not yet been achieved and humanitarian space remains restricted.

To analyse the humanitarian challenges ahead, this article draws on two complementary accounts. Thomas Janny, Regional Director for the Middle East at Solidarités International, and Olivier Routeau, Director of Operations and Charlotte Baudoin, Country Director for Syria at the NGO Première Urgence Internationale (PUI). Before the fall of the regime, Solidarités International was working in rebel-controlled areas (in the north-east and north-west of the country), while Première Urgence Internationale was working in regime-controlled areas, in 10 of the country’s 14 governorates.

Between the reorganisation of the humanitarian sector, reduced funding and strong political and geopolitical tensions, post-Assad Syria raises many questions about the future of aid and the conditions under which it is delivered.

A Blitzkrieg with uncertain consequences

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime was as sudden as it was unexpected, a veritable Blitzkrieg, as Thomas Janny puts it. In the space of ten days, HTS forces, supported by numerous other militias, took control of the capital, causing the total collapse of a regime that had held out for fourteen years with the support of Iran and Shiite militias, as well as Russia. This rapid changeover left the country without a functional state structure, with an improvised transitional government and an administration in ruins.

Interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa is seeking to stabilise the situation, notably by adopting an interim constitution in March 2025. This constitution guarantees certain fundamental freedoms, notably in terms of expression and women’s rights, but it maintains a powerful executive with few checks and balances. Although there have been declarations aimed at establishing a democratic framework, the foundations remain extremely fragile,’ explains Olivier Routeau of Première Urgence Internationale. The absence of solid structures and the lack of resources are complicating the establishment of a stable state, while the population sees few concrete improvements in their daily lives.

Nor has the collapse of the regime put an end to the violence. In the first few weeks, clashes broke out on the Syrian coast, particularly in Tartous and Latakia, historic bastions of the Alawite community. This violence, which caused more than 1,300 deaths (many of them civilians), rekindled the community and religious tensions that had characterised the Syrian conflict. There is a real danger of widespread reprisals against the Alawites, who are seen as Assad’s historical supporters,’ warns Charlotte Baudoin, from PUI. Many are fleeing to Lebanon, while the new authorities are struggling to impose their control over the security forces, who are implicated in these abuses.

At the same time, Syria remains a battleground for geopolitical rivalries. Turkey, sponsor of the new government, is concerned about the maintenance of Kurdish power in the north-east, and has stepped up its air strikes, targeting areas under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (FDS). Israel, for its part, has stepped up its strikes on Syrian military sites. The fall of Assad has not put an end to foreign interests in Syria; on the contrary, it has redistributed the cards,’ analyses Thomas Janny. We might even say that Turkey has replaced Iran in Syria.

In this chaotic context, the reconstruction of the country seems out of reach in the short term. At the Brussels summit on 19 March, international donors pledged $6.5 billion, a limited amount compared with the $400 billion needed for reconstruction. In addition, US sanctions remain in place, hampering the necessary investment and slowing down any attempt at economic recovery. The European Union has lifted some restrictions, notably on the energy sector, but their impact remains limited. Without the lifting of US sanctions, Syrian recovery is impossible’, notes Olivier Routeau.

For the NGOs working on the ground, this transition period represents a major challenge. The end of the regime has turned the organisation of humanitarian aid upside down, raising new questions about access to populations and cooperation with the new authorities. While Syria has immense needs in terms of aid and reconstruction, humanitarian aid workers have to deal with an unstable environment and a future that is still uncertain.

Opening pipes to the water network in a camp in northern Syria © Solidarités International

Minorities in Syria: between fragile integration and persistent tensions

The rapid fall of the Assad regime has reshuffled the cards of power in Syria, but it has not put an end to community divisions. While the transitional government claims to want to build an inclusive nation, religious and ethnic tensions are a reality that the new government must resolve. Minorities, historically caught up in the conflict, now find themselves in an uncertain position, between fears of reprisals and promises of integration.

The Alawites, long seen as the mainstay of the Assad regime, are now the most vulnerable. In Tartous and Latakia, atrocities targeted the community from the very first days of the transition, killing more than 1,300 people. The government has condemned the violence, but probably does not have the means to prosecute these crimes,’ observes Charlotte Baudoin of Première Urgence Internationale. Weakened by years of war and impunity, the Syrian judicial system seems incapable of fulfilling its role for the time being.

The Kurds, for their part, gained political recognition with the agreement of 10 March, which provides for the integration of the FDS into the national army. This agreement, which enshrines the place of the Kurds in the new Syria, is nevertheless fragile. Tensions persist between Kurdish units, former jihadists and pro-Turkish mercenaries. It will be difficult to unify these forces under a single structure,’ stresses Charlotte Baudoin. Moreover, this agreement has not prevented Turkey from continuing its strikes in north-eastern Syria, a sign that Damascus’ recognition of the Kurds does not mean an end to the bombing and fighting, which could resume at any time.

For the Druze, the transition raises as many hopes as concerns. Their religious leader, Hikmat al-Hajri, has publicly criticised the new government’s constitutional declaration as being too centralised and unrepresentative of Syria’s diversity. The question of autonomy, granted to them under Assad as part of the ‘Alliance of Minorities’, remains unresolved. In a country where community balances are still unstable, the challenge will be to guarantee a system where each group finds its place without stirring up resentment.

This situation makes access for humanitarian aid particularly delicate. For Solidarités International, which has been operating in areas that were not held by the Assad regime, since the beginning of its work, the displacement of populations and the new humanitarian needs represent a major challenge. During the HTS offensive towards Damascus, our teams on the ground witnessed massive displacements of Kurdish populations towards the north-east, where they had to put in place an emergency response in just a few days’, explains Thomas Janny. PUI, which was initially present in the government zone, is also emphasising the need for reconstruction to include all minorities in order to avoid further fractures.

United Nations (UN). (2025). Humanitarian Response Priorities: January – March 2025 – Syrian Arab Republic. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) [2]
Uncertain humanitarian access

Humanitarian needs in Syria

  • 16.5 million people require humanitarian aid.
  • 14.56 million people are food insecure, of whom 9.1 million are classified as acutely food insecure (including 1.3 million in a severe situation).
  • 8 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) since 2011.
  • 823,302 people newly displaced in 2024, of whom 522,600 returned in December alone.
  • Nearly 6.5 million people have fled Syria since the start of the civil war, including: more than 3 million to Turkey, around 784,000 to Lebanon, more than 705,000 to Germany, and almost 650,000 to Jordan.

Figures from the OCHA 2025 report on humanitarian needs in Syria[1].

Humanitarian aid budget in 2024

  • In 2024, the United Nations has estimated the aid budget required at 4.07 billion dollars.
  • At the end of the year, only 1.46 billion dollars (or 35.9%) had been raised.

Humanitarian Action 2024 figures[2]

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime has opened up new prospects for humanitarian action in Syria. NGOs have been able to access previously unreachable areas from their respective zones of operation before the overthrow of the regime.

However, this opening has been accompanied by new administrative and logistical constraints. As the legal framework is not yet well defined, the potential implementation of new programmes remains compromised for the time being. According to Thomas Janny, the authorities are still hesitant about the relationship they wish to maintain with international NGOs (INGOs) and the freedom they will be granted. In addition, the security situation remains unstable: bombardments persist in certain regions of the north-east, and further atrocities cannot be ruled out. The humanitarian situation has continued to deteriorate,’ notes Charlotte Baudoin, ’Israeli air strikes have intensified, while ongoing hostilities in the north and south, as well as recent instability and the deteriorating situation in coastal areas, have worsened humanitarian conditions and increased protection concerns.

Another major challenge is the gradual return of refugees, estimated at 125,000 since the fall of the regime. According to the United Nations, nearly 6.5 million people have fled Syria since the start of the civil war, with a further 8 million internally displaced. These returns raise questions about access to basic services for people who return to their villages in ruins after years of exile, and about the capacity of NGOs to respond to new needs. In a context where funding is uncertain and infrastructures are still fragile, humanitarian organisations must find sustainable solutions to support this transition.

The humanitarian sector absolutely must succeed in this first phase of emergency response, to enable Syria to move on to the next stage, that of reconstruction’, explains Olivier Routeau.

Photo of PUI during a visit to Syria in January 2025

International support and financial uncertainties: a delicate balance

The role of the international community is now crucial to Syria’s recovery. Since the fall of the regime, several governments and multilateral organisations have announced plans to support reconstruction, emphasising the need for inclusive development and political stabilisation. The European Union, for example, has reaffirmed its commitment to a peaceful and sustainable transition, while institutions such as the World Bank are beginning to consider recovery projects.

This international support is essential to rehabilitate destroyed infrastructure, support basic services and encourage the return of displaced persons and refugees. Olivier Routeau stresses that without a strong commitment from international donors, local capacities will remain too limited to meet the immense humanitarian and reconstruction needs. This support should enable us to move away from an emergency approach and lay the foundations for more sustainable aid.

However, this dynamic has been disrupted by a reorganisation of humanitarian funding. The sudden freezing of American funds, which via the USAID agency amounted to a total annual budget of 42.8 billion dollars (42% of global humanitarian aid), has created major uncertainty for NGOs on the ground. American aid to Syria represented around a quarter of donations to the humanitarian response plan in 2024, i.e. 377.7 million dollars [3]. The suspension of funding has forced many organisations to drastically reduce their operations or even withdraw from certain areas.

Faced with these restrictions, humanitarian actors are having to reassess their funding strategies, and are looking to diversify their sources. However, this decision by the new Trump administration is part of a more general trend of reduced funding for international aid. Cuts in the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budgets of several European countries, including France, are giving rise to great concern and imposing a very short-term approach.

In this uncertain context, coordination between humanitarian and development aid is essential. We must avoid a humanitarian vacuum that would leave millions of Syrians without support at a critical time’, insists Olivier Routeau. Finally, the lifting of the remaining sanctions appears to be a necessary condition to facilitate economic recovery and enable humanitarian actors to work more effectively on the ground.

An unpredictable future, an essential commitment

As Syria enters a new phase in its history, the humanitarian challenges are immense. While the fall of the regime has opened up certain prospects, it has also left a devastated country, where humanitarian emergencies go hand in hand with the need for reconstruction.

International support will be crucial if another disaster is to be avoided. But with funding falling and instability on the ground, NGOs are struggling to adapt. The lifting of the remaining sanctions, better humanitarian coordination and appropriate funding will be essential to support Syria in the long term, if it is to stabilise and not fall back into conflict.

 

[1] Syrian Arab Republic Humanitarian Response Plan 2024 | Financial Tracking Service

[2] United Nations (UN). (2025). Humanitarian Response Priorities: January – March 2025 – Syrian Arab Republic. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

[3] Humanitarian action, Syrian Arab Republic, 2024. Financials | Humanitarian Action

 

India Hauteville

India Hauteville holds a first Masters degree in International Politics from Sciences Po Bordeaux and is currently studying for a Masters degree in Integration and Change in the Mediterranean and Middle East at Sciences Po Grenoble. She is currently assistant to the founder of Solidarités International, Mr. Alain Boinet.

Particularly interested in the Syrian conflict, she is currently writing a thesis on the articulation between humanitarian principles and the realities on the ground in Syria, using the NGO Solidarités International as a case study.

 

 

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :

Trump is causing a humanitarian tsunami.

President Donald Trump signs executive orders © White House

The decision by the Trump administration, led by Elon Musk, has hit the humanitarian and development aid sector like a bolt from the blue. After a 90-day freeze on all programmes, almost all the employees of USAID and its agencies (BHA, BPRM) were immediately dismissed.

Then, on the night of 26-27 February, humanitarian actors received letters suddenly cutting off funding in countries where emergency relief is vital, such as Sudan, Syria, Niger, Yemen and Mozambique.

What is striking is the suddenness and brutality of the decision, and we can only be pessimistic for the future when we learn that more than 10,000 programmes have been sacrificed, along with 92% of USAID’s budget, according to indications yet to be confirmed.

It’s an earthquake, a tidal wave, a tsunami, a cataclysm, unprecedented because budgets have only been increasing for over 35 years, even though the curve of resources was falling compared with that of needs, according to a scissor effect that we analysed here recently.

The fall will be all the harder when we know that in 2023, while global Official Development Assistance (ODA) reached USD 223 billion, the contribution of the United States, the largest contributor, represented USD 64.7 billion, including USD 14.5 billion in humanitarian assistance. Without knowing what will happen to the State Department’s budget in this area, we can measure the haemorrhaging of aid when observers indicate that American aid represents 42% of international aid.

The humanitarian consequences are immediate when, depending on the organisation, American funding sometimes represents between 20% and 50% of its budget! One NGO has had to suspend immediately a drinking water supply programme for 650,000 displaced persons in Darfur, while another organisation has had to stop its programme of 850,000 medical consultations in Afghanistan.

Distribution of hygiene kits in Kulbus, 300km from Al Geneina in Darfur 2 ©Solidarités International

There is no doubt that this decision by the Trump administration will lead to a deterioration in survival conditions and ultimately to an increase in mortality among vulnerable populations, as well as a great deal of despair when aid is cut off so abruptly without even having had time to organise to limit the shock. We need to be able to assess the terrible human consequences this will have, without forgetting the responsibility of the States and the protagonists of the conflicts towards their populations.

Frankly, whatever the reasons for the Trump administration’s decision, it is not responsible to put the lives of so many human beings and the partner organisations that help them at risk in this way. What is the value of the word and credibility of a country that behaves like this with regard to humanitarian and development aid? We are talking here about saving lives and escaping from extreme poverty. This is neither a luxury nor an action contrary to the defence or promotion of the United States, which is no longer recognised in this decision!

A humanitarian tsunami.

We need to understand and act quickly. We are facing a drastic reduction in humanitarian and development aid from the United States, but also from other countries that are now cutting back on Official Development Assistance and humanitarian aid, despite some rare counter-examples.

Germany, for example, has already announced a drastic 53% cut in its humanitarian aid by 2025, from an initial level of €2.77 billion. Similarly, France, which had planned a budget of one billion euros in 2025, will only be spending half that amount, while at the same time its Official Development Assistance will lose more than 2 billion euros this year.

The case of the UK is emblematic of this serious and lasting trend. This country set an example by devoting 0.7% of its GDP to ODA until the end of the 2010s. Back in 2020, Boris Johnson, then Conservative Prime Minister, reduced ODA from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross domestic product (GDP). It is now set to fall to 0.3%. ‘I’m not happy about this announcement’, said the new Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

At the same time, the UK’s defence budget will rise from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% from 2027, and should rise to 3% by 2030. As a result, the British defence budget, which stood at 77 billion euros in 2024, will increase by 16.1 billion euros each year from 2027 to meet the risk of war in Europe.

The shock for the humanitarian sector is massive and violent. Apart from the NGOs that have most of their funds from public generosity and have the necessary cash flow, for the majority of NGOs this means the closure of programmes and country missions, as well as redundancies in the field and at headquarters of between 20% and 50% of staff.

This process has already begun among NGOs and will continue, especially as it is still difficult to assess the indirect consequences, such as the interruption of American funding to United Nations agencies that call on international and national NGOs. There is even talk of the United States withdrawing from various multilateral organisations, and Elon Musk has even gone so far as to support an exit from the UN!

Women and children collecting unsafe water in Kenya, causing sometimes fatal water-borne diseases © Water.org

In this edition, we publish two articles to mark World Water Day on 22 March. Access to drinking water and sanitation, and water for agriculture, are vital needs for populations. What will become of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals 2015-2030, including Goal 6 for water, in this context?

What are the alternatives for humanitarian actors?

While the effects are global, they will be felt in different ways depending on the level of partnership with USAID, BHA, BPRM and the business model of each NGO.

Faced with a drastic reduction in funding for humanitarian and development aid, the consequences are massive, rapid and lasting. The priority is to safeguard, as far as possible, both aid to populations and the operational core of relief organisations.

In this context, we will have to rely as much on our own strengths and re-mobilise the internal potential of each organisation and its supporters, as we will have to optimise the pooling of resources to save money and build alliances with other organisations and with countries and public or private institutions that will remain mobilised for humanitarian security.

For the time being, we are faced with two contradictory injunctions. We need to reduce the number of organisations while preserving their operational core as a driving force for action and recovery. Each organisation will have to provide a time-calibrated response. The NGO coordinations will put forward an adapted and convincing global plea that goes beyond the usual language.

Here is a summary of the areas of effort identified, which each organisation will optimise:

Mobilisation of all internal resources, governance, head office, field.
Optimising the pooling of purchasing and operational innovation in aid.
Mobilising individual donors, corporate partners, foundations and local authorities.
Optimising partnerships with institutional partners in France and other EU member states, other countries and the UN.
Prospecting and developing other partners such as non-European OECD member countries (Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc.) and the Gulf States.

More concretely, solutions such as the State Guaranteed Loan (SGL) should be explored as a response to the security and redeployment of humanitarian NGOs.

In France, the Groupe de Concertation Humanitaire (GCH), which brings together humanitarian NGOs and Coordination Sud with the Centre de Crise et de Soutien (CDCS) of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, will be a major vector for mobilisation and a relay with Europe and the United Nations. This work has already begun.

VOICE at the European Parliament’s Development Committee with the ICRC, MSF and the EU Red Cross.

The European level is essential, both for DG ECHO’s 2025 budget, whose Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) could be significantly increased. The Multiannual Financial Framework (2028-2025) of the new European Commission will be the litmus test of the political will to strengthen humanitarian security at a time when the United States is pulling out.

This is where VOICE, the umbrella organisation for European humanitarian NGOs, will have a major role to play in promoting appropriate proposals to the European Commission this year. This action will be more effective if it is coordinated with governments, NGOs, the Red Cross family and United Nations agencies. With this in mind, VOICE ‘calls on the European Union to take the lead in a global strategic dialogue to develop a new humanitarian system’.

Against a backdrop of national debt, balance of payments deficits, political and social instability, uncertainty about identity and the future, the abandonment of the United States and a reduction in ODA, humanitarian actors must also fundamentally review their communications and advocacy, which are already outdated.

Aid will be questioned, challenged and called into question both politically and in relation to other priorities. What is a priority, what is not, what has become superfluous? What is the humanitarian raison d’être and what is its real added value? Why is it necessary, if not essential? What do we do with the money? How do we convince people now? As a friend said to me, how do you convince a voter in Wisconsin or the Massif Central to help Ukraine, Haiti, Myanmar or Sudan?

Towards a new Yalta?

A geopolitical tsunami.

Over and above the essential question of funding, humanitarians are going to have to live with and adapt to a major geopolitical upheaval. Donald Trump is turning the tables on international relations and putting an end to two of the European Union’s fundamental pillars – the transatlantic link (NATO), multilateralism and international law. We are returning to the balance of power, with old empires reawakening.

This began with Russia’s war in Ukraine, which opens the door to other possible conflicts in Europe itself. But it is also the path taken by China when it threatens Taiwan and wants to occupy all the space in the China Sea and the straits, the path taken by Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean and now in Syria, the path taken by Azerbaijan against Armenia, the path taken by Rwanda and the M23 in the DRC. The law of the strongest. Others will follow!

The vote on 24 February at the United Nations on support for Ukraine and its territorial integrity gives an idea of the upheavals underway when the United States votes against with Russia and the number of votes against and abstentions increases considerably compared with the previous vote on 2 March 2022.

After 3 years of war, Ukraine is still in danger. Borodianka, Kyiv Oblast, 6 April. Photo: Oleksandr Ratushniak / UNDP Ukraine

The rapprochement between the United States and Russia is a return to the condominium of the Cold War, leaving Europe surprised and in danger. In view of the risk to freedom, independence and sovereignty posed by a possible war in Europe, beyond Ukraine, a rapid and massive increase in Europe’s defence budgets will be essential in the long term. The European Union is going to have to review its fundamentals if it is to face up to the new world that is asserting itself with force. It will have to rely on its roots, its historical realities and its peoples if it is to exist and be strong, because there is a great risk that it will be dismantled and/or subservient.

Conclusion.

The humanitarian sector is caught up in a larger, more powerful whole which sets its own pace and priorities. How will the humanitarian sector survive and renew itself in this tsunami? This is the existential question facing the sector today.

Its raison d’être, which is to save lives, is still its mission in the face of wars, disasters and epidemics. The development of fragile countries is still the best response to people’s basic needs. And our experience teaches us that failure to do so will generate instability one step at a time, according to the theory of the butterfly effect or the domino effect, which creates chaos and human suffering.

Alain Boinet.

Alain Boinet is President of the association Défis Humanitaires, which publishes the online magazine www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International, of which he was Managing Director for 35 years. He is also a member of the Groupe de Concertation Humanitaire at the Centre de Crise et de Soutien of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, and of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, the Partenariat Français pour l’Eau (PFE), the Véolia Foundation and the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to travel to the field (Northeast Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to speak out in the media.

 

 

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :