Syrian Arab Republic

  • Humanitarian Response Priorities
  • From: 01/01/2026 to: 31/12/2026
  • Published: 02/04/2026
  • Coordinated by: OCHA

Syria Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan 2026 / Part 3: Sector Response Plan

3.2 Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM)

People in Need
1.8M
People Targeted
1.8M
People Prioritized
1.3M
Requirements (US$)
$20.8M
Prioritized Requirements (US$)
$14.5M
CCCM

Summary of needs

  • In 2025, over 1.01 million IDPs who returned from Internally Displaced Camps to their areas of origin or places of choice following the political transition in Syria in December 2024, adding to over 1.2 million IDPs still in camp are in need of support. The majority of returnees have moved back to areas with severely damaged or destroyed housing, critical infrastructure, and no basic services, some have ended up in semi IDP sites in areas of return.
  • The government’s ‘No Camp Policy initiative’ has ushered in urgency for strengthening the coordination and ensuring government leadership and responsibility on facilitating safe, informed and dignified returns of IDPs from the camps. The sector IDP intention survey shows up to 378,000 IDPs in informal and formal sites intend to return home in 2026.
  • Critical Funding Gaps and Resource Constraints: The sector was only funded at 14 per cent in last year’s humanitarian response plan, hindering provision of essential services.
  • Fire Risks and Hazards: 69.5 per cent of the IDP sites (87 per cent-unplanned) are overcrowded sites, facing increased risks of disease outbreaks, fires, and safety hazards.
  • Winterization Needs: Sustained funding gap for winterization, as 30 per cent of IDP sites flooded in 2025 with properties destroyed and humanitarian access in some camps in Idleb and Aleppo hindered.
  • HLP issues: 67 per cent of IDP sites have invalid or pending HLP status, increasing the risk of evictions, land disputes, and the potential for forced evictions.

Response strategy

  • Localisation and Capacity Strengthening: accelerating the localisation of CCCM, transitioning responsibility to local authorities and local partners. Strengthening capacity of national partners to lead in site management and decision-making.
  • Alternatives to Camps and Durable Solutions: Pursuing solutions for IDPs in sites through area-based approaches (ABA) that support both displaced and host communities, and return facilitation.
  • Community Empowerment: Enhancing capacity of displaced populations to directly shape humanitarian responses, ensuring they are active participants in managing their environments. Pursue community led initiatives.
  • Climate Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR): Integrating environmental sustainability and climate-smart solutions into site management, alongside community-based disaster preparedness.
  • Integrated, Data-Driven Responses: ISIIM, ISIIM Plus, Joint CCCM/Government assessments and surveys to facilitate solutions; leveraging on sector leadership on the IDP Taskforce.
  • Protection Mainstreaming: Focusing on safety, dignity, and addressing protection risks, including GBV, in all displacement settings and during returns.
  • Transition from Relief to Recovery: CCCM partners will facilitate shift from camp-based aid delivery to supporting durable solutions, including, when safe, voluntary returns and the rehabilitation of shelter.

Targeting & prioritization

  • Severity of Needs: All sites prioritised high-severity scores (3 or 4).
  • Access-Based Prioritisation: particularly using Mobile Site Management Teams (MSMTs) to reach under-served, informal sites.
  • Alternatives to Camps” Approach: Prioritising options that avoid the creation of formal, longterm camps, favoring area-based approaches that support integration with host communities.
  • Localisation: Promoting local leadership and working with national/local organizations to manage sites, ensuring long-term sustainability and ownership.
  • Participatory Governance: Establishing inclusive community committees (ensuring representation of women, youth, and marginalized groups) to drive decision-making and accountability.
  • Exit Strategies: Clear, phased out plans that transition site management to local authorities or community structures.

Promoting accountable, quality & inclusive programming

  • The sector will ensure communities receive clear, accessible information on options, services, documentation pathways (where relevant), and support available—while collecting feedback and concerns through CFMs and community structures.
  • CCCM will Integrate inclusion (disability, older persons, women, adolescents) in information and feedback channels, aligned with the survey’s disability findings.

Cost of response

  • Despite the common cost drivers such as inflation, exchange rates, and rising material costs, the average monthly cost for CCCM minimum interventions has remained relatively stable. However, precise information cost variations for maintenance, flood mitigation efforts, Community Led Projects (CLP), or Capacity Building initiatives were not available, instead these were estimated based on implementation expenses for 2025.
  • The wide variation in site types, infrastructure conditions, and population distribution makes it challenging to set standardised rates for CCCM activities. As a result, project cost estimates must be contextualized, shaped by site/area-level assessments, partner planning, and community priorities at the time.
  • Geographical factors significantly influence the cost ranges for CCCM activities. Remote areas incur higher expenses due to logistical challenges. Additionally, site maintenance and mitigation efforts in these locations—encompassing procurement, transportation, and third-party.
  • For 2026, sector included a 10 per cent targeting of host population in addition to the Camp based population to strengthen social cohesion and reintegration prospects. Further considerations were made for contingency budget to address the preparedness in cases of conflict, floods, fires, disease outbreaks, and evictions.