Attachments
This document1 provides guidance to Protec on Sector partners on how to prepare for any closure of protection programming. It is the experience of the protection sector that most partners will work as hard as possible, within their resources, to implement the responsible exit of programmes. In principle, each partner and opera on should have an exit strategy in place for their programming. While it is desirable that an exit strategy is based on a situation where there are no further needs, or where local authorities/services have the capacity to take over from protection programming, programmes close for many reasons. This includes situations such as a loss of funding, sudden loss of access, or a shift in needs in another location. This document recognises that with the reduce on in foreign aid in 2025, partners will close programmes before they originally intended, and without full transition measures in place. The core ethos of this guidance can be applied across the protection spectrum.
It is important to note that:
- In Syria, operational constraints such as fragmented governance and access limitations, may affect the feasibility of standard exit procedures. Partners should adapt strategies to local realities while maintaining humanitarian principles.
- The Sector recognises that most partners will have internal guidelines and best practice on closure of programmes. This guidance does not supersede any internal guidance.
- All efforts should be made to ensure any programme closure is necessary, planned, and conducted in a principled manner.
- The closure or scale down of programming will have an impact on people who were receiving support and assistance, particularly those whose assistance is disrupted.
- Protection is an interagency response and the reduction of service provision from one partner will have an impact on other partners. It is important that we engage in this collectively and responsibly to ensure that this does not have a negative impact on community trust and the access of remaining organisations.
- Programme exit/scale down can be a very emotional process. It may create distress among affected communities who may no longer receive previously provided support and services.
- The funding shortfalls expected in 2025 are system wide, which means non protection actors will also end programming. This will have an impact on the capacity and focus of any remaining protection partners and directly hinder referral/access to basic services.
- Some relevant guidance is already available (e.g. CPHA Alliance on closure of case management programmes).
- Project sustainability should be considered from the outset of the closure process. Where possible, partners should explore op ons for handing over program services to local actors, community structures, or other humanitarian partners to ensure con nuity of cri cal support and so that it does not inadvertently result in mul ple actors exi ng the same geographic area or withdrawing from services that support high-risk caseloads.