.svg)
Across crisis settings, recovery is often framed as a function of systems, programmes, institutions, coordination mechanisms, and funding streams. But in practice, recovery is being carried by something far less visible.
It is being carried by people.
Recovery in the aftermath of Syria's earthquakes
In Syria, this reality has been shaped by more than a decade of conflict, institutional fragmentation, and economic collapse, compounded by the February 2023 earthquakes that struck an already overstretched humanitarian landscape. Entire neighbourhoods shifted overnight not only physically, but socially, forcing communities to navigate loss, displacement, and uncertainty with little clarity on what would come next, or who would step in.
In those early days after the earthquake, before coordination structures stabilised and before assistance began to move at scale, people responded with what they had: their time, their networks, and their sense of responsibility towards each other.
Youth and young women at the centre of the response
Youth and young women were at the centre of this response. They organised, checked on neighbours, facilitated access to support, and created spaces, however small, where communities could regroup and begin to stabilise. Many of these efforts did not look like "programmes." They looked like conversations, improvised initiatives, shared responsibilities. And yet, they carried much of what recovery required in those moments.
What began as small, local efforts often did not stop. As one practitioner described, what started as an initiative "is no longer just an initiative, it has become a community network," sustained not through external control, but through continuity, trust, and local ownership.
This is not an exception. It reflects how recovery is actually happening.
How recovery actually happens
Recovery, in practice, depends less on formal systems and more on social infrastructure, relationships, trust, proximity, and the ability to act quickly in uncertain environments. Local actors are not simply delivering services; they are interpreting needs, navigating constraints, and holding together the social fabric that allows recovery to function at all. In many parts of Syria, where governance remains fragmented or contested, they have also taken on roles that resemble informal governance, coordinating support, organising access, and maintaining a degree of stability where formal structures are weak or absent.
And yet, the systems designed to support recovery continue to operate as if this were not the case.
The disconnect between practice and policy
There is a growing disconnect between how recovery actually happens and how it is funded, structured, and recognised. Those most relied upon in practice remain the least visible in policy and the least prioritised in funding. Local actors particularly youth and young women are widely mobilised but structurally marginalised, positioned as implementers rather than decision-makers, and as volunteers rather than leaders.
This disconnect is not abstract. It shows up in everyday decisions: who receives funding directly, who is asked to deliver without flexibility, who carries responsibility without protection. It shapes who can continue working, and who eventually has to stop.
A shifting wider context
At the same time, the wider context is shifting. Humanitarian funding is tightening, crises are becoming more protracted, and expectations of local actors are increasing. The system is, in effect, asking more from those it continues to invest in the least.
Early recovery as a continuous process
Early recovery itself is also changing. It is no longer a clearly defined phase that follows response. In contexts like Syria shaped by conflict, disaster, and political uncertainty, recovery is a continuous, negotiated process. It unfolds in everyday interactions, in decisions about who to trust, in efforts to rebuild not only infrastructure, but a sense of normalcy and possibility.
What needs to shift
By continuing to rely on local actors while excluding them from meaningful decision-making and underinvesting in their capacities, current approaches risk reinforcing the very inequalities that have accumulated over years of conflict and crisis. More critically, they risk weakening the social foundations upon which recovery now depends.
What is required is not a new framework, but a shift in how reality is recognised. This means moving beyond short-term project logic towards more flexible and predictable forms of support, recognising local actors as central decision-makers rather than peripheral partners, and investing not only in formal organisations but also in the informal and hybrid structures through which much of recovery is actually sustained. It also requires acknowledging forms of labour that remain largely invisible particularly social, care, and relational work, despite their central role in stabilisation and continuity.
Without such shifts, a deeper contradiction will continue to define recovery efforts.
If recovery continues to depend on actors the system refuses to recognise, it will not fail suddenly, it will quietly erode from within.
