It has now been two weeks since two earthquakes hit the Turkish-Syria border region, which have so far killed more than 42,000 people across Türkiye and Syria. The true death toll is also thought to be much higher due to a mix of issues; unregistered Syrian refugees in Türkiye, domestic political pressures to diminish the scale of the disasters, challenges to locate the deceased, especially in Syria, whereby it has been extremely difficult for rescue teams to get into the country, and the impossibility of maintaining accurate documentation systems for the deceased, especially in administratively challenged Northern Syria. Whilst countries around the world have largely been responsive, sending medical and rescue units, and emergency supplies such as blankets, tents and food parcels, aid has been dominated by in-kind goods. For example, the UK has pledged £25 million in overseas aid for emergency relief, such as for tents and the ongoing deployment of medical expertise, the US has pledged $85 million for food, shelter and winter supplies, water, hygiene and sanitation, and the EU has given 5.5 million euro for immediate needs to Türkiye, and 10 million euro of emergency humanitarian aid to Syrian earthquake victims. China has also sent 53 tonnes of tents to Türkiye along with 82 rescue workers and is in the process of sending diagnostic medical equipment.

Whilst there is certainly a need for these goods, items and rescue services, especially in the immediate days after such crises – for example, the work of the Turkish National Emergency Agency, setting up 170,000 tents to get survivors out of the freezing temperatures – the aid system as an entirety must adapt with the crises as the needs of people change. Crucially, with people displaced into tents provided by governments or international charities, the response to these disasters is now shifting as people must begin to sustain and rebuild their communities and livelihoods.

As Vice News showcased in their video report by Hind Hassan, survivors now face great uncertainty that food parcels alone cannot solve. A Turkish man whom she interviews, 50-year-old Mohamed Abou Yousuf, tells of his grief and despair at losing everything, primarily his home of 17 years, which, as he is without work, was his sole possession to his name. Therefore, without aid structures and responses at all levels changing to become more comprehensive and flexible to the long-term nature of this crisis, trauma and disaster will cement in people’s lives, which to those in Syria, is already a daily burden. As the Chief Executive of the UK’s Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC), Saleh Saaed, states, “compassion comes in many forms, but we are urging people to donate money rather than things.” This request is in-line with aid restructuring that has taken place since the 1990s, whereby the successes of the Mexican cash transfer social assistance schemes delivered clear, if modest, improvements to people in poverty. These then expanded across Latin America and cemented themselves as a new tool of aid within the aid debate into the millennium. There are now many unconditional or conditional (recipients must meet stipulations, like attending educational classes, or sending children to school) cash transfer schemes in use across the world.

Give Directly, a charity which champions the use of cash to target poverty, further corroborates the need for the aid scene to become less item-orientated and instead more driven by autonomy, responsibility, and empowering people as rational actors. They refer to their successful pilot of unconditional cash transfers to refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo in Uganda, whereby recipients stated they preferred cash to goods which they had no choice in, and importantly, this 2018 pilot scheme reported considerable positive impacts, such as agricultural investment and business investment. As such, cash aid is argued to be more beneficial in addressing those in poverty. Whilst these aid schemes are tackling different issues, namely the multidimensionality of poverty, not emergency crises, cash aid has also been positively argued for humanitarian crisis survivors. Scholars such as Kian et al (2022) argue cash is beneficial to those who need medium- and longer-term help, as cash gives rapid, flexible assistance and crucially provides a lifeline for people to rebuild their lives.

However, it must be stated that a cash-based approach would be more effective in Türkiye than Syria, as Türkiye is a fully functioning sovereign state which possesses the necessary infrastructure to assist the administrative side of cash aid schemes, such as banks to distribute cash to and where cash can thus be withdrawn from. Currently, Türkiye is facing the primary challenge of being totally overwhelmed, not a deeper issue of state failure. On the other hand, Syria is facing extreme inflation - the Syrian currency was even devalued in Northern Syria for the Türkiye lira in 2022, and many displaced Syrians in the earthquake zones cannot capitalise on using the cash in their devasted communities.

Therefore, cash aid schemes must be appropriate to state, but also intra-state regional dynamics. This does not mean that they should not be attempted if the conditions are favourable. As this crisis will begin to drift away from the Western media’s focus, what will not fade away are the consequences of these natural disasters for the Turkish and Syrian people. As with all natural disasters, the economic, social and political effects will last generations, decades after in-kind aid disappears.