1
EC POLICY REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025
HORIZON EUROPE PROJECT
Decen ing he S udy o Mig an Re u ns and
Readmission Policies in Eu ope and Beyond
(GAPs)
Be ween Choice and Cons ain :
Go-and-See Visi s and Sy ian Re u n om Tü kiye1
N. Ela Gökalp A as2 and Umu can Yüksel3
Swedish Resea ch Ins i u e in Is anbul (SRII)
This policy epo analyses Tü kiye’s “Go-and-See Visi s” as a dis inc i e mechanism
wi hin he coun y’s e ol ing e u n-mig a ion go e nance o Sy ians unde
Tempo a y P o ec ion. I elies on ounds o desk esea ch and in e iews conduc ed
in Gazian ep and Ha ay be ween Janua y and June 2025. The ieldwo k combined
si e-le el obse a ions wi h consul a ions in ol ing NGOs, UN agencies, and o he
humani a ian s akeholde s. The aim was o unde s and he changing humani a ian
landscape, new implemen a ions (such as “go-and-see isi s” and assis ance o
olun a y e u n), he needs and u u e in en ions o Sy ians, and he policy
adjus men s and challenges su ounding olun a y e u n o Sy ia. The policy
epo , a culmina ion o his ho ough analysis, p esen s c i ical policy- ela ed
insigh s and p o ides ecommenda ions.
Execu i e Summa y
This policy epo examines Tü kiye’s “Go-
and-See Visi s” (GSVs) as a dis inc i e
mechanism wi hin he coun y’s e ol ing
e u n-mig a ion go e nance o Sy ians
unde empo a y p o ec ion (SuTP).
O iginally designed o enable in o med
decision-making, GSVs we e e-launched in
2025 ollowing he all o he Assad egime a
he end o 2024, allowing selec ed e ugees o
empo a ily a el o designa ed a eas in
No he n Sy ia o assess sa e y, housing, and
1
Please ci e as: Gökalp A as, N. E., & Yüksel, U. (2025). Be ween Choice and Cons ain : Go-and-see Visi s
and Sy ian Re u n om Tü kiye, WP10 Policy Repo in GAPs: Decen ing he S udy o Mig an Re u ns and
Readmission Policies in Eu ope and Beyond, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17668808
2
Senio Resea che , Swedish Resea ch Ins i u e in Is anbul (SRII), ORCID: h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-
9844-3955 , E-mail: ela.gokal[email p o ec ed]
3
Resea che , Swedish Resea ch Ins i u e in Is anbul (SRII), ORCID: h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-3565-
3568 , E-mail: umu can.yuksel@s i.o g.
li elihood condi ions be o e deciding whe he
o e u n. D awing on desk esea ch, ield
obse a ions, and consul a ions wi h
humani a ian ac o s conduc ed be ween
Janua y and June 2025 (wi h he suppo o
p e ious ieldwo k conduc ed be ween
Janua y and June 2024), his epo si ua es
GSVs wi hin he b oade shi om a
ecep ion- o- e u n policy amewo k. I
analyses hei implica ions o olun a iness,
agency, and policy legi imacy.
2
EC POLICY REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025
The indings highligh ha while GSVs a e
amed as a bes -p ac ice model o
ope a ionalising in o med choice, hey
simul aneously expose he con adic ions o
olun a y e u n go e nance. Al hough many
Sy ians exp ess emo ional a achmen o hei
homeland, s uc u al cons ain s such as
insecu i y, des oyed in as uc u e, poo
access o se ices, and economic dep i a ion
con inue o impede sus ainable e u n. In
Tü kiye, policy-induced p essu es, such as he
closu e o Tempo a y Accommoda ion
Cen es (TACs) and ising socio-economic
ulne abili y, ha e c ea ed sub le coe ci e
en i onmen s ha may comp omise
olun a iness. The isi s hemsel es a e o en
limi ed o male amily ep esen a i es,
es ic ing women’s and child en’s
pa icipa ion and ein o cing gende ed
asymme ies in decision-making.
Mo eo e , he educed p esence o he UN
agencies and NGOs, caused by se e e unding
sho ages, unde mines independen
p o ec ion moni o ing and inc eases he isk
ha GSVs e ol e in o symbolic showcases
a he han genuine olun a y-choice
mechanisms. Field da a con i m ha while
Sy ians conside GSVs help ul in decision-
making, he majo i y s ill e ain om
pe manen e u n due o ongoing insecu i y
and li elihood challenges in Sy ia. The
implemen a ion o pilo cash-assis ance
p og ammes (up o €1,000 pe household) by
he P esidency o Mig a ion Managemen
(PMM) and UNHCR demons a es ha
economic suppo emains c ucial o
ensu ing genuine olun a iness and
sus ainabili y o e u n.
The policy epo concludes ha Tü kiye’s
GSV model e lec s bo h inno a ion and
ambigui y. I p o ides a pla o m o in o med
decision-making, ye i ope a es in a policy
con ex in which olun a iness is s uc u ally
cons ained by push ac o s in Tü kiye and by
limi ed pull ac o s in pos -Assad Sy ia. Fo
GSVs o unc ion as a c edible ins umen o
olun a y e u n, h ee policy p io i ies a e
essen ial: (1) coupling GSVs wi h a ge ed
inancial and ein eg a ion suppo ; (2)
es o ing independen moni o ing capaci y
h ough adequa e in e na ional unding; and
(3) in eg a ing gende - and child-sensi i e
app oaches in o isi design. Wi hou hese
sa egua ds, GSVs isk se ing as
adminis a i e o mali ies a he han
pa hways o sa e, digni ied, and sus ainable
e u n.
In oduc ion
In he ield o e u n mig a ion policy,
Tü kiye’s app oach owa d he e u n o
Sy ians has inc easingly d awn a en ion as
bo h a egional and in e na ional case s udy.
Among he a ious ins umen s employed, he
so-called “go-and-see isi s (GSVs)” cons i u e
a pa icula ly signi ican example o how
s a es seek o acili a e and legi imise
olun a y e u n. These isi s ypically allow
po en ial e u nees o a el empo a ily o
hei a eas o o igin in Sy ia o assess he
secu i y si ua ion, access o se ices, and
gene al li ing condi ions be o e making a inal
decision o e u n. This policy epo examines
Tü kiye’s “Go-and-See Visi s” (GSVs) as a
dis inc i e mechanism wi hin he coun y’s
e ol ing e u n-mig a ion go e nance o
Sy ians unde empo a y p o ec ion (TP).
O iginally designed o enable in o med
decision-making, GSVs we e e-launched in
2025 ollowing he all o he Assad egime a
he end o 2024, allowing selec ed e ugees o
empo a ily a el o designa ed a eas in
no he n Sy ia o assess sa e y, housing, and
li elihood condi ions be o e deciding whe he
o e u n. D awing on desk esea ch, ield
obse a ions, and consul a ions wi h
humani a ian ac o s conduc ed be ween
Janua y and June 2025 (wi h he suppo o
p e ious ieldwo k conduc ed be ween
Janua y and June 2024), his epo si ua es
GSVs wi hin he b oade shi om a
ecep ion- o- e u n policy amewo k. I
analyses hei implica ions o olun a iness,
agency, and policy legi imacy.
The impo ance o he GSV model can be
classi ied in o wo main unc ions. Fi s , i
p o ides mig an s wi h he oppo uni y o
make an in o med decision based on i s -
hand obse a ion a he han hea say, which
is a signi ican p inciple o olun a iness in
in e na ional p o ec ion and e u n
amewo ks (Black & Kose , 1999; IOM, 2019).
Second, i se es as a policy ins umen o he
hos s a e o encou age e u n by educing
unce ain y, mi iga ing ea s, and
demons a ing ha e u n is bo h possible and
suppo ed ins i u ionally (Hugo, 2013; Long,
2013).
3
EC POLICY REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025
The e a e di e en cases and simila
implemen a ions in a ious egions and
coun ies, such as he Uganda–Rwanda
expe ience, exempli ied by he “Go-and-See,
Come-and-Tell” (GSCAT) isi s o Rwandan
e ugees esiding in he Naki ale se lemen .
Ini ia ed a e 2015 by he Ugandan and
Rwandan go e nmen s, along wi h he
UNHCR. The p og amme aimed o allow
selec ed e ugees o obse e condi ions in
Rwanda and e u n o Uganda o in o m
o he s abou epa ia ion p ospec s (Ka ooma,
2024, p. 2). The isi s, howe e , we e highly
secu i ised: pa icipan s we e hos ed in
mili a y and police aining acili ies,
unde wen pa io ism aining, and we e
in e oga ed abou amily ies and alleged
links o ebel g oups (Ibid., pp. 2–3). The
p og am was embedded in s a e-led
epa ia ion campaigns and pe cei ed as
poli icised; howe e , nei he case has led o
la ge-scale olun a y e u n. This case
demons a es ha while GSVs a e p omo ed
as ools o e ugee agencies, hey isk
becoming ins umen s o s a e mig a ion
diplomacy and p essu e o e u n.
On he o he hand, ega ding he egion and
he ocused e ugee popula ion, e lec ions
om Egyp , I aq, Jo dan, and Lebanon a e
mo e ele an o Tü kiye’s case and he
speci ic GSVs ela ed o Sy ians. Based on he
ecen UNHCR (2025a, p. 4) epo , ac oss
Egyp , I aq, Jo dan, and Lebanon, o e 60% o
su eyed e ugees emphasised he impo ance
o conduc ing GSVs be o e making a inal
decision on e u n. In e es in such isi s was
pa icula ly high in Jo dan (70%) and
Lebanon (61%), while lowe in I aq (37%)
(Ibid., p. 7). Re ugees no ed ha hese isi s
would p o ide c i ical i s -hand in o ma ion
on sa e y, housing, li elihoods, and se ices.
42% o Sy ian e ugees in Egyp in ended o
e u n wi hin he nex 12 mon hs, whe eas his
igu e is only 12% in I aq (Ibid., p. 6). The
UNHCR’s epo shows ha egionally, GSVs
a e amed as essen ial o in o med choice;
howe e , hei e ec i eness depends on
add essing s uc u al ba ie s, such as
housing des uc ion, insecu i y, and a lack o
se ices.
Among hose coun ies, pa icula ly wi h
almos 1.5 million Sy ians, Lebanon s ands ou
as a signi ican case s udy, simila o Tü kiye.
As o 30 June 2025, i is es ima ed ha 1.4
million displaced Sy ians a e in Lebanon, o
whom 722,000 a e egis e ed wi h he
UNHCR, in addi ion o 11,200 asylum seeke s
and e ugees om o he na ionali ies
(UNHCR, 2025b). Following he shi ing
poli ical and humani a ian dynamics in Sy ia
a e Decembe 2024, he UNHCR and i s
pa ne s-ini ia ed communi y consul a ions in
Lebanon o explo e e ugees’ pe cep ions o
e u n and he po en ial use o GSVs. By mid-
May 2025, app oxima ely 156,000 Sy ians
had e u ned o o ansi ed h ough Lebanon
(UNHCR, 2025c, p. 1). The Lebanon case
esembles ha o Uganda-Rwanda and
Tü kiye-Sy ia in highligh ing how GSVs a e
amed as ools o in o med decision-making,
ye s uc u al ba ie s, such as secu i y
pe cep ions, housing, and se ices, hea ily
cons ain hei impac .
The GSVs Implemen a ion in
Tü kiye
In Tü kiye, his p ac ice is embedded in a
b oade e u n policy ha has shi ed om an
ini ial ecep ion-and-in eg a ion pa adigm
owa d a e u n-and- epa ia ion amewo k,
pa icula ly a e 2019 (Şahin Mencü ek e al.,
2023; Gökalp A as e al., 2025; Ro mann e
al., 2025; Şahin Mencü ek, 2025). Thus, he
GSVs ep esen an impo an case o
analysing how he bounda ies be ween
olun a y and coe ced e u n a e nego ia ed in
p ac ice, especially in con ex s whe e e u n is
poli ically p omo ed as a du able solu ion. The
coun y case illus a es how olun a y e u n
is ope a ionalised h ough ins i u ional
mechanisms and why i emains a c ucial, ye
con es ed, componen o e u n go e nance in
Tü kiye.
These isi s enable Sy ians o empo a ily
a el o designa ed a eas in no he n Sy ia,
allowing hem o di ec ly obse e he
condi ions o sa e y, housing, and li elihood
oppo uni ies be o e making a inal decision
abou hei e u n. In p inciple, his
mechanism is widely ega ded as a bes -
p ac ice example, since i educes unce ain y,
s eng hens agency, and enhances he
c edibili y o olun a y e u n p ocesses by
g ounding hem in i s -hand expe ience. A
he same ime, he Tü kiye case highligh s he
inhe en ambigui ies o such p ac ices om a
c i ical pe spec i e. While amed as a
4
EC POLICY REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025
con idence-building measu e, GSVs also se e
as a s a e-led ins umen o encou age e u n,
especially in a poli ical clima e whe e he
epa ia ion o Sy ians has become a cen al
policy objec i e, as is he case in Tü kiye since
2019. The p ac ice, he e o e, occupies c i ical
space be ween olun a iness and sub le o ms
o coe cion. I also demons a es why
olun a iness mus be c i ically assessed no
me ely as a legal ca ego y bu as a p ac ice.
Be ween 2017 and 2022, especially ollowing
Tü kiye’s mili a y in e en ions in No hwes
Sy ia, Tü kiye has been allowing Sy ians o
make GVSs o Sy ia o a pe iod o up o 3
mon hs du ing he wo majo eligious
holidays, i.e. Eid Al-Fi and Eid Al-Adha. Eid
(bay am) isi s also p o ided Sy ian mig an s
wi h an oppo uni y o check on hei land o
p ope ies and he secu i y si ua ion i s -
hand. Howe e , since 2022, Tu kish
au ho i ies ha e e ec i ely p e en ed Sy ians
who a el home om e u ning o Tü kiye
a e isi ing hei homeland du ing eligious
holidays due o he in ensi ying an i- e ugee
sen imen in Tü kiye (Al-Moni o , 2025).
Howe e , he all o he Assad egime in Sy ia
in Decembe 2024 s a ed a new phase, and
mo e han 509,387 Sy ians ha e e u ned
om Tü kiye since hen (Ye likaya, 2025).
Acco dingly, he numbe o Sy ians unde
empo a y p o ec ion has dec eased om 3.53
million in 2022 o 2.43 million as o
Sep embe 2025 (Ibid.) Despi e he inc eased
end in numbe s, many Sy ians a e c i ical o
he op ion o e u n due o a lack o
in o ma ion/awa eness, secu i y conce ns in
Sy ia, inancial/economic ba ie s, lack o
housing/place o s ay in Sy ia, and
legal/adminis a i e es ic ions and pe sonal
ci cums ances (Upinion, 2025).
In ligh o ecen de elopmen s in Sy ia,
Tü kiye e-launched he GSVs o Sy ians as o
1 Janua y 2025. Du ing his pe iod, a
designa ed head o he amily was pe mi ed o
en e /lea e he coun y h ee imes wi hin six
mon hs (UNHCR, 2025d). The UNHCR
Tü kiye welcomed he new measu e
au ho ising GSVs o Sy ia wi h he possibili y
o e-en y, acknowledging i s impo ance in
allowing Sy ians o make in o med decisions
abou whe he o e u n o hei coun y (Al-
Moni o , 2025). The Minis e o In e io
announced he measu e as a pilo immig an
model, indica ing a s uc u ed app oach in
which one amily membe a els i s o lay
he g oundwo k o he es o he amily’s
e u n (PMM, 2025a). To acili a e GSVs and
pe manen olun a y e u ns, he p ocessing
capaci y a bo de c ossings was inc eased
om 3,000 o 15,000-20,000 pe sons pe day
(DW, 2024). In May 2025, he Minis e o
In e io announced app oxima ely 27,000
“pionee immig an s” (PMM, 2025b).
A ecen epo o Upinion (2025) e lec s he
implica ions and d awing impo an lessons
om GSVs o Sy ian e ugees in Tü kiye,
de eloped based on in e iews wi h mo e han
200 Sy ians, e eals ha only a small
p opo ion o Sy ian mig an s pa icipa ed in
he GSVs o Sy ia, 12% did so hemsel es and
14% knew someone who did, mainly due o
lack o awa eness, secu i y isks, inancial
cons ain s, housing issues, and legal o
adminis a i e ba ie s (Ibid.). Those who
made he jou ney la gely encoun e ed
de as a ing condi ions: des oyed
in as uc u e and homes, di e economic and
humani a ian ci cums ances, and widesp ead
insecu i y; while he isi s had a decidedly
mixed e ec on e ugees’ e u n in en ions:
oughly 46% we e encou aged o conside
e u ning, spu ed by nos algia, amily ies, o
hope o s abili y, while ano he 46% we e
de e ed, discou aged by ha sh li ing
condi ions, lack o se ices, and sa e y
conce ns wi h jus 9% epo ing no change in
in en (Ibid.). O e all, mo e han hal (57%) o
su ey esponden s deemed he isi s help ul
in making in o med decisions, 40% desc ibing
hem as essen ial and 17% as use ul (Ibid.)
Conside ing GSVs, ano he s udy on Tu key
(Zeynep Şahin-Mencü ek and O. Bahadı
Dinçe , o hcoming/2025), which also
con i ms ha , a e Assad’s all, en husiasm
su ged, bu he ac ual e u n emained limi ed
and une en ac oss go e no a es. Re u ns a e
cons ained by insecu i y, des oyed housing,
poo se ices, lack o li elihoods, and social
di isions (Ibid., p. 1). The esea ch emphasises
he con adic ion be ween he o icial Tu kish
da a and he UNHCR eco ds ega ding
olun a y e u ns (Ibid., p. 3). In pa icula ,
ega ding he GSVs, he s udy s a es ha he
ela ed p ocedu e is amed as “o de ly and
olun a y,” in ol ing online appoin men s,
in e iews, olun a y e u n o ms, UNHCR
p esence, and designa ed bo de c ossings,
which a e wi hou cash o logis ical suppo ,
5
EC POLICY REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025
and a e seen as c ea ing ba ie s o
ulne able g oups (Ibid.). While se e e
unding sho ages ha e o ced many NGOs o
close o scale back, he IOM has had a limi ed
ole, and he UNHCR only moni o s
olun a iness, as i does no p omo e e u n,
since Sy ia is no deemed sa e (Ibid., p. 4).
Those s udies show ha many Sy ians exp ess
emo ional a achmen o Sy ia bu delay
e u n due o sa e y isks, housing sho ages,
poo se ices, and economic dep i a ion.
Thus, ega ding he GSVs, hey highligh he
need o assis ance, moni o ing, and
sa egua ds. The hesi a ion and cos ba ie s
aced by e ugees indica e ha GSVs alone
canno gene a e a sus ainable e u n.
The ollowing wo igu es p o ide end
analysis o Sy ian e ugee e u ns and explain
he p ocedu e o olun a y e u n and GSVs.
Figu e 1: Sy ian Re ugees Volun a ily Re u ned o Sy ia om Tu key
Sou ce: De eloped by au ho s, based on a ailable in o ma ion on UNHCR Regional Flash Upda e on Sy ia.
Figu e 2: Volun a y Re u n and Go-and-See Visi P ocedu e o Sy ians in
Tü kiye
Sou ce: De eloped by au ho s, based on a ailable in o ma ion on UNHCR. (2025d). “Mo emen p ocedu es”,
h ps://help.unhc .o g/ u kiye/ ol ep/mo emen -p ocedu es/
6
EC POLICY REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025
Geopoli ical and In e nal Dynamics in Re u n Decisions o Sy ians
The collapse o he Assad egime in Decembe
2024 has undamen ally ans o med he
landscape o Sy ian e u n mig a ion om
Tü kiye, in oducing bo h unp eceden ed
oppo uni ies and complex challenges. While
his poli ical ansi ion has gene a ed cau ious
op imism among Sy ian mig an s who ha e
endu ed ou een yea s o p o ac ed
displacemen , he sus ainabili y o e u n
emains con ingen upon mul iple
in e sec ing geopoli ical and in e nal
dynamics ha con inue o shape Sy ia’s pos -
con lic ajec o y. The con empo a y Sy ian
con ex is cha ac e ised by i e p incipal
dynamics ha di ec ly impac he iabili y and
sa e y o e ugee e u n:
Fi s , Is ael’s mili a y engagemen in Sy ia
has in ensi ied signi ican ly, wi h nea ly 100
documen ed a acks in 2025 alone. These
ope a ions sys ema ically a ge Sy ian
mili a y in as uc u e and a eas pe cei ed as
h ea s o Is aeli secu i y in e es s, c ea ing
pe sis en insecu i y zones ha complica e
e u n planning and e i o ial s abili y
assessmen s (SOHR, 2025).
Second, he e up ion o sec a ian iolence on
12 July 2025, be ween D uze and Bedouin
communi ies, exempli ies he agili y o
in e communal ela ions in pos -Assad Sy ia.
The Uni ed Na ions epo ed ha since 12
July, a leas 93,400 people ha e been
displaced, mos wi hin Sweida go e no a e
(OCHA, 2025). The igh ing be ween local
D uze-led and Bedouin a med g oups,
exace ba ed by he manne o he Sy ian
go e nmen ’s in e en ion and Is aeli
ai s ikes, has caused widesp ead dis up ions
o elec ici y, wa e , and heal h ca e, and
igni ed sec a ian ha e speech and he isk o
ep isals agains D uze communi ies ac oss
he coun y (HRW, 2025).
Thi d, he in eg a ion o Ku dish-led Sy ian
Democ a ic Fo ces p esen s bo h
oppo uni ies and challenges o na ional
econcilia ion. On 10 Ma ch 2025, he Sy ian
go e nmen eached an ag eemen wi h he
Ku dish-led Sy ian Democ a ic Fo ces (SDF)
o in eg a e hei mili a y and ci ilian
ins i u ions in o he s a e’s s uc u es. This
deal aimed o consolida e con ol o e
no heas e n egions and add ess
longs anding e hnic ensions. The in eg a ion
is expec ed o be comple ed by Decembe 2025
(Financial Times, 2025). Despi e being signed
by al-Sha aa and SDF commande Mazloum
Abdi, implemen a ion has s alled o e
Damascus’s demands o comple e SDF
disbandmen and he ejec ion o Ku dish
uni s.
Fou h, he sanc ions egime con inues o
impede Sy ia’s economic econs uc ion.
While he Eu opean Union and he Uni ed
Kingdom ha e li ed mos sanc ions, he
Uni ed S a es has issued only limi ed
ins umen s, such as Gene al License 25 and
empo a y suspensions o he Caesa Ac .
Consequen ly, Sy ia’s banking sec o emains
la gely isola ed om he global inancial
sys em, se e ely cons aining economic
eco e y and econs uc ion e o s essen ial
o sus ainable e u n (KAS, 2025).
Fi h, e u n decision-making pa e ns e eal
complex push-pull dynamics. Acco ding o
ETANA’s (2025) comp ehensi e s udy on
“Re ugee Re u ns & Mig a ion Dynamics a e
Assad,” e u nees iden i ied push ac o s in
hos coun ies, including ising li ing cos s
and xenophobia, as signi ican conside a ions.
Howe e , he egime’s all eme ged as he
p ima y pull ac o in luencing ecen e u n
decisions. Those choosing no o e u n ci ed
undamen al issues, including a lack o us in
he new au ho i ies, secu i y unce ain ies,
and conce ns abou li ing condi ions. No ably,
he s udy ound ha no pull ac o s
independen o push ac o s p o ed
su icien ly compelling o encou age e u n,
no we e economic conside a ions he p ima y
de e minan s o e u nees (Ibid.).
7
EC POLICY REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025
Policy and P ac ice on he
Re u n o Sy ians
Following he poli ical ansi ion in Sy ia in
Decembe 2024, ou eam conduc ed ounds
o desk esea ch (Yüksel and Gökalp A as,
2024) and addi ional in e iews in Gazian ep
and Ha ay be ween Janua y and June 2025.
The ieldwo k combined si e-le el
obse a ions wi h consul a ions in ol ing
NGOs, UN agencies, and o he humani a ian
s akeholde s. The aim was o unde s and he
changing humani a ian landscape, new
implemen a ions (such as GSVs and
assis ance o olun a y e u n), he needs and
u u e in en ions o Sy ians, and he policy
adjus men s and challenges su ounding
olun a y e u n o Sy ia.
A e he all o he Assad egime, Sy ians
pe cei e e u n as a iable op ion, hough no
in he nea u u e. Sa e y and secu i y
conce ns, lack o us in new au ho i ies, and
in as uc u e de ici s a e among he p ima y
easons o Sy ians’ cau ious s ance owa d
pe manen e u n. Meanwhile, he p o ec i e
en i onmen o Sy ians has been se e ely
a ec ed by compounded ulne abili ies
caused by he 2023 ea hquakes, de e io a ing
socio-economic condi ions, and s ic e policy
implemen a ion.
In his dynamic and e ol ing en i onmen , we
cap u ed he ollowing shi s in policy and
p ac ice. Fi s , due o USAID budge cu s
( educed o $ 3.8 million USD in 2025 om $
52.5 million USD in 2024) and he
inc easingly s e ched humani a ian unding
landscape, he e has been a signi ican
dec ease in he p esence o NGOs and UN
ins i u ions, wi h many ha ing ei he
subs an ially educed hei pe sonnel capaci y
and p og ams o closed en i ely. Conside ing
he impac o he 2023 ea hquakes, his
limi ed humani a ian capaci y has di ec ly
a ec ed he suppo mechanisms p o ided o
Sy ians and educed he independen
p o ec ion moni o ing capaci y.
Despi e he p ema u e na u e o many e u n
mo emen s, demand o e u n assis ance has
inc eased signi ican ly among Sy ian e ugees,
especially hose who see no o he op ion due
o socio-economic and documen a ion
challenges. Many ac i ely seek suppo o
e u n and ein eg a ion, pa icula ly cash
assis ance o shel e econs uc ion in Sy ia.
The EU has commi ed 95 million EUR in
unding o UNHCR o “Suppo ing Volun a y,
Sa e and Digni ied Re u ns o Sy ians o Sa e
Zones in Sy ia (Family Based Volun a y
Re u n),” likely o be implemen ed in
coo dina ion wi h Tu key’s P esidency o
Mig a ion Managemen (Eu opean
Commission, 2025). I was epo ed ha cash
assis ance o up o 1,000 EUR is being
p o ided o Sy ian amilies in Adıyaman as a
pilo , i hey choose o e u n o Sy ia. PMM
and UNHCR implemen he p og am. Due o
he camp’s closu e, Sy ian amilies we e
p o ided wi h h ee op ions: olun a y e u n,
ans e o u ban a eas, o ans e o ano he
p o ince.
The socio-economic impac s on Sy ian
amilies in Tu key e eal conce ning
in e gene a ional ends. The e has been a
ma ked inc ease in child labou and school
d opou a es, as Sy ian amilies inc easingly
p io i ise accumula ing sa ings o home
econs uc ion o ehabili a ion in Sy ia o e
hei child en’s educa ional con inui y. This
ade-o be ween immedia e e u n
p epa a ion and long- e m human capi al
de elopmen poses signi ican isks o he
nex gene a ion o Sy ians. Pa icula ly
conce ning is he po en ial ein eg a ion
challenge acing child en bo n in Tu key who
possess limi ed A abic language skills in he
e en o pe manen e u n o Sy ia. These
educa ional and linguis ic ba ie s compound
he al eady complex challenges o pos -
con lic ein eg a ion.
Housing policy changes ha e in ensi ied
s uc u al p essu es o e u n. The closu e o
empo a y accommoda ion cen es (TACs) in
Sep embe 2025—including acili ies ha
8
EC POLICY REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025
housed Sy ian mig an s ollowing he 2023
ea hquakes—has o ced ulne able amilies
in o un enable choices be ween eloca ing o
una o dable u ban se ings o e u ning
p ema u ely o Sy ia. The con e gence o
housing c ises, ele a ed en al cos s
(pa icula ly in ea hquake-a ec ed egions),
and he absence o inancial suppo o
ein eg a ion assis ance o e u nees has
e ec i ely c ea ed s uc u al push ac o s ha
may compel p ema u e and po en ially
unsus ainable e u ns.
A lack o in o ma ion abou p ocedu es and
igh s u he complica es in o med decision-
making abou e u ning. Inadequa e access o
accu a e in o ma ion abou olun a y e u n
p ocedu es, igh s, and en i lemen s,
compounded by he p oli e a ion o
misin o ma ion, has led many Sy ians o make
e u n decisions wi hou a comple e
unde s anding o he implica ions and
op ions. Pa icula ly complex cases in ol e
unaccompanied mino s o child en wi h one
deceased o Sy ia-based pa en , whe e
Tu kish au ho i ies’ equi emen o pa en al
consen c ea es unexpec ed p ocedu al
ba ie s ha amilies o en disco e only a e
ini ia ing e u n p ocesses. In esponse,
UNHCR, NGOs, and local au ho i ies ha e
in ensi ied e o s o dissemina e accu a e
in o ma ion abou igh s, en i lemen s, and
olun a y e u n p ocesses, ailo ing
in e en ions o add ess indi idual needs.
The upda ed ield in o ma ion con i ms ha
GSVs may p o ide in o ma ion, bu canno
shi o e all e u n dynamics. The closu e o
Tempo a y Accommoda ion Cen es (TACs) in
ea hquake-a ec ed egions o ces
households in o p ema u e e u n o
una o dable eloca ion. This demons a es
how policy-induced p essu es can
comp omise he olun a y na u e o e u ns
and o e shadow he unc ion o GSVs. Also,
wi hou inancial suppo , GSV pa icipan s
may iew e u ns as un easible e en i isi s
con i m emo ional a achmen o amily ies.
The esponden s s a ed ha a join PMM–
UNHCR pilo in Adıyaman o e s up o €1,000
pe household, while in e na ional NGOs also
plan a pilo cash-suppo p og amme ha
p o ides €700–1,000 pe household,
embedded in case managemen sys ems.
These models di ec ly add ess he cos
ba ie s e ugees ace and could be in eg a ed
wi h GSVs o s eng hen olun a iness.
On he o he hand, ecen in e iews also
highligh ed ha unding sho ages ha e o ced
NGOs and UN agencies o signi ican ly educe
o close hei ope a ions. The sh inking
humani a ian unding en i onmen dec eases
independen moni o ing capaci y and
inc eases he isk ha GSVs become policy
showcases a he han genuine olun a y-
choice mechanisms. Finally, ega ding he
GSVs, i should be no ed ha despi e i s
posi i e aspec s, women ace es ic ions on
mobili y, loss o independence, and d ess-
code imposi ions; child en bo n in Tu key lack
A abic li e acy and ace blocked educa ional
pa hways in Sy ia. Thus, when he GSV
oppo uni y is p o ided o he household, i is
gene ally he male amily membe s; he e o e,
GSVs mus be designed wi h gende - and
child-sensi i e componen s.
Ou ield obse a ions unde sco e ha while
GSVs se e as an impo an mechanism o
in o med decision-making, he con e gence o
push ac o s in Tu key and pull ac o s in pos -
Assad Sy ia c ea es a complex en i onmen
whe e he olun a iness o e u n emains a
con es ed issue. The gap be ween e ugees’
aspi a ions o e u n and he eali y o Sy ia’s
capaci y o ensu e sus ainable, sa e, and
digni ied ein eg a ion con inues o p esen
undamen al challenges o all s akeholde s
in ol ed in managing his unp eceden ed
e u n mo emen .
9
EC POLICY REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025
Conclusion and Policy Recommenda ions
While GSVs ep esen a c ucial mechanism o
enabling Sy ian e ugees o make in o med
decisions abou e u n wi hin his complex
spec um o conside a ions, he mul i ude o
eme ging challenges on he Sy ian side, om
ongoing secu i y h ea s and sec a ian
iolence o economic isola ion and mino i y
ulne abili y, undamen ally unde mine he
sus ainabili y o e u n and comp omise he
sa e y and digni y o e u nees. The gap
be ween he aspi a ion o olun a y, sa e, and
digni ied e u n and he eali y o Sy ia’s
cu en condi ions emains subs an ial,
equi ing con inued in e na ional a en ion
and ca e ully calib a ed policy esponses ha
p io i ise e ugee p o ec ion while
acknowledging he legi ima e desi e o many
o e u n home.
Tü kiye’s GSVs ha e o en been amed as a
p agma ic esponse o he complex dilemmas
o e u n mig a ion. By allowing Sy ians unde
empo a y p o ec ion o wi ness condi ions in
hei coun y o o igin be o e making li e-
changing decisions, he app oach appea s o
o e a balanced middle g ound be ween he
impe a i es o hos -coun y managemen and
e ugees’ igh o in o med choice. Ye a close
analysis e eals ha his model, while
inno a i e in p inciple, is a om
unp oblema ic.
Fi s , he p ac ice ope a es wi hin a con ex
whe e Sy ians ace pe sis en challenges in
Tü kiye, disc imina ion in he labou ma ke ,
unequal access o educa ion and heal h
se ices, and exposu e o xenophobia. Such
expe iences can c ea e indi ec p essu es and
push ac o s ha unde mine he pe cei ed
“ olun a iness” o e u n, e en when he
decision is amed as in o med. Second, he
si ua ion in Sy ia i sel emains uns able, wi h
agile go e nance and he ule o law,
insecu i y, and limi ed access o basic se ices
con inuing o de e la ge-scale, sus ainable
e u ns. In his con ex , GSVs isk c ea ing
un ealis ic expec a ions o unc ioning as
symbolic ges u es a he han pa hways o
du able solu ions. Howe e , sus ainable
e u ns equi e s uc u al gua an ees in Sy ia
i sel , such as sa e y, economic s abili y, and
unc ioning public se ices, which a e s ill
absen . Un il such condi ions a e me , e u n
will emain a limi ed op ion o a small
mino i y a he han a collec i e ajec o y.
In his sense, while Tü kiye’s “go-and-see”
app oach illus a es an a emp o
ope a ionalise in o med choice, i
simul aneously exposes he con adic ions o
e u n go e nance: an emphasis on p agma ic
managemen in he absence o genuine
condi ions o du able solu ions. As such, he
model should be ead bo h as a bes p ac ice
and as a eminde ha olun a y e u n
canno subs i u e o he long- e m poli ical
and socio-economic econs uc ion o Sy ia.
Fo GSVs o unc ion as a c edible ins umen
o olun a y e u n, h ee policy p io i ies a e
essen ial:
1. Coupling GSVs wi h a ge ed
inancial and ein eg a ion
suppo : The pilo cash-assis ance
p og ammes demons a e he c i ical
impo ance o economic suppo . Such
p og ammes should be expanded and
sys ema ically linked o GSV
pa icipa ion o ensu e ha e u nees
can make genuinely in o med
decisions wi h adequa e esou ces o
ein eg a ion.
2. Res o ing independen
moni o ing capaci y h ough
adequa e in e na ional unding:
The diminished p esence o UN
agencies and NGOs due o unding
sho ages has c ea ed se ious
p o ec ion gaps. Robus , independen
moni o ing mechanisms mus be
es o ed o ensu e ha GSVs unc ion
as ools o he e ugee agency a he
han s a e-di ec ed e u n p essu e.
3. In eg a ing gende - and child-
sensi i e app oaches in o isi
design: Cu en GSV p ac ices o en
limi pa icipa ion o male amily
ep esen a i es, excluding women and
child en om decision-making
p ocesses. Fu u e implemen a ions
mus ensu e inclusi e pa icipa ion
and add ess he speci ic p o ec ion
conce ns o women and child en.
