From Displacement to Reconstruction: New Report Advances How Smart, Coordinated Return Strategies Can Help Rebuild Syria and Ukraine

WASHINGTON, DC — The fall of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's regime in December 2024, largely ending a civil war that sparked one of the world’s biggest displacement crises, triggered a flurry of chiefly ad hoc policy announcements across Europe. Some governments suspended asylum processing for Syrians. Others are offering financial incentives for voluntary return or are carrying out status reviews of cases involving Syrians with criminal convictions, with an eye to returning them.  

While large-scale return of displaced persons to Syria, which remains a fragile situation, or of similarly situated Ukrainians, whose country remains in active conflict, are unlikely in the near term, host-country publics experiencing hospitality fatigue are pressing governments to show that conflict-related protection is bounded. But rushed, uncoordinated returns risk destabilizing fragile post-conflict settings, triggering new displacement, burdening host-country economies and ultimately undermining the reconstruction goals that policymakers are seeking to advance.

A new report from the Migration Policy Institute's Transatlantic Council on Migration makes the case that high-income countries should replace ad hoc responses with phased, coordinated strategies that link near-term status decisions with longer-term reconstruction goals.

In From Exile to Return: Rebuilding Lives and States after Conflict, analysts Samuel Davidoff-Gore and Susan Fratzke map the levers available to policymakers who are navigating status transitions for Syrians, return planning and post-conflict reconstruction support.

The report identifies several elements for governments to consider:

• It would be destabilizing to pull the plug on protection too fast. Blanket withdrawal of protected status and rushed, large-scale returns could overwhelm still-fragile origin countries while disrupting host-country economies and communities. A transition period during which most people keep their protected status, paired with the ability to make periodic visits to their country of origin to check conditions as well as predeparture counseling and possibly voluntary return incentives, would pave the way for more sustainable returns.
• Status transitions should be tailored to individual circumstances. Displaced populations are not monolithic. Some will need long-term protection; others may prefer early return or circular mobility. Drawing on the Bosnian precedent from the 1990s, when protection status was gradually ended, authorities should triage case types (for example by recency of arrival or ongoing protection need) rather than apply uniform cessation. Allowing "lane changes" from humanitarian to labor- or family-based statuses for some individuals would be more effective than treating all cases the same.
• Coordination across refugee-hosting countries can prevent cascading problems. Countries must develop shared criteria for when Syria and Ukraine are safe for return and align status reviews as uncoordinated mass returns to fragile contexts could derail the rebuilding process or trigger more instability. Uncoordinated returns also could generate secondary movements within the European Union, as happened after Denmark announced a review of Syrian asylum status in 2021.
• Diasporas can serve as trusted partners and resources, not just targets for return. Policymakers should consider how to support the cross-border flow of human capital and local knowledge that diasporas can bring. Programs such as the Germany-Syria Hospital Partnerships and the UK-Ukraine TechBridge demonstrate how governments can build human capital and stimulate entrepreneurship across borders by facilitating temporary visits, virtual collaboration or cross-border investment. "Dual-intent" integration programming—building skills that are valuable whether a person stays or returns—offers another proven tool, with Norway's experience during the Yugoslav Wars providing an early model and the Unity Hubs several EU countries are operating for Ukrainians a current one.

Ultimately, how host-country governments handle return and reconstruction for Syrians and Ukrainians will shape the international protection system for years to come. Clear planning, transparent communication and coordinated action across host countries, countries of origin and international institutions can help policymakers navigate this complex moment.

“As governments grapple with how to demonstrate order and control in migration management systems, policymakers should seek to communicate to anxious publics that conflicts do wind down and that hospitality need not be a bottomless commitment,” Davidoff-Gore and Fratzke conclude. “However, they should balance such messaging against the risks of overly hasty return efforts… If policymakers can successfully navigate these tensions for Syria and Ukraine, they can create the playbook for future post-conflict scenarios.”

Read the report here: www.migrationpolicy.org/research/exile-return-after-conflict.

For more on the Transatlantic Council on Migration, visit: www.migrationpolicy.org/transatlantic.