Safety & Security
WeLead Lebanon - Safety and Security - Reflections on the last 2 years
The WeLead Lebanon programme operates as a feminist SRHR initiative through a network of Community of Action organizations across Lebanon's regions. Over the past two years, the country experienced dramatic transformation, transitioning from relative stability in early 2024 to full-scale war beginning in September 2024. This resulted in over 3,750 deaths, 15,000 injuries, and approximately 899,725 internally displaced people. The November 27, 2024 ceasefire marked entry into 2025 as a post-war recovery phase characterized by ongoing Israeli breaches of the ceasefire agreement, regional tensions and persistent psychological aftermath rather. Throughout both years, the absence of effective state-level safety and security infrastructure left civil society organizations to develop protective mechanisms within an inherently unstable institutional environment.
Changes in Safety and Security Context
Theoretical Framework Evolution
The safety and security strategy was originally designed for SRHR programming in a non-war context, integrating acceptance, protection, and wellness components through a feminist lens. The September 2024 conflict escalation fundamentally altered this approach, requiring strategic workplan modifications to incorporate 10% allocation for emergency response activities with new crisis-intervention indicators.
This transformation meant organizations originally designed for SRHR advocacy were now required to develop emergency response capabilities while some converted facilities to serve displaced populations and others were forced to relocate due to being in areas directly targeted by Israeli airstrikes. The theoretical framework evolved from standard development-context security models to crisis-adapted approaches recognizing the need for organizations to assume responsibilities typically handled by state actors.
Practical Operational Changes and Geographical Variations
The security environment varied dramatically across Lebanon's regions. Organizations in areas directly hit by Israeli airstrikes faced immediate physical threats, infrastructure destruction, and forced displacement scenarios requiring enhanced protection protocols. Conversely, organizations in destination areas experienced sudden population increases and overwhelming service demand, necessitating rapid capacity expansion and emergency response mechanisms.
This geographical variation created fundamentally different operational realities requiring location-specific strategizing rather than uniform approaches.
Programme Adaptation Strategies
The WeLead safety and security strategy underwent three evolutionary phases: initial development (2024), wartime amendments (September/October 2024), and post-ceasefire adaptations (2025). Each phase required strategic recalibration as security conditions shifted unpredictably.
The acceptance strategy focused on building community relationships while acknowledging that traditional approaches required modification in areas of active hostilities. The protection strategy emphasized practical measures while maintaining feminist principles, incorporating leadership coordination through Safety and Security Focal Points, risk assessment systems, and crisis response mechanisms. The wellness strategy emerged as most critical, addressing psychological impacts through the Resilience Fund, peer support systems, and basic staff care practices.
The programme established adaptive programming frameworks enabling real-time adjustments based on continuous safety assessments, recognizing that static protocols would fail in dynamic environments. This approach emphasized when formal protocols must give way to contextual judgment and when organizational safety requires acknowledging limitations rather than pushing beyond sustainable capacity.
Successes and Challenges
Successes
The CoA demonstrated exceptional adaptability, successfully navigating three distinct security phase transitions throughout the duration of the programme, while maintaining operational effectiveness. They developed contextualized safety approaches combining formal training knowledge with deep contextual understanding, proving more effective than standardized protocols alone.
The programme maintained feminist principles while adapting to diverse emergency response requirements across different geographical contexts, demonstrating how feminist organizations can provide crisis response while upholding core values and long-term objectives.
Challenges
The most significant challenge proved to be psychological welfare impact on CoA members and Rightsholders in addition to physical security threats. The lingering effects of conflict, combined with ongoing regional security concerns, created stress and anxiety directly influencing project implementation timelines, team morale, organizational resilience, and strategic planning processes.
Geographical variation in threat exposure created complex coordination challenges within the CoA network, with organizations facing different immediate needs creating tensions in resource allocation and strategic prioritization. The most significant systemic barrier remained the absence of effective state-level security infrastructure, creating contexts where grassroots initiatives could only provide minimal responses to safety and security needs.
Lessons Learned
Location-Specific Strategizing and Adaptive Flexibility
The most critical lesson was the paramount importance of remaining flexible and adapting safety and security strategies to evolving contexts. Throughout Lebanon, organizations faced dramatically different threat environments requiring tailored responses rather than uniform approaches. Static security protocols would have failed to address the dynamic nature of the post-conflict recovery environment.
Integration of Formal and Contextual Knowledge
Effective security decisions emerged when organizations integrated formal training knowledge with deep contextual understanding and instinctive awareness of local dynamics. This hybrid approach proved particularly effective when organizations operated in varied geographical contexts with different threat levels, demonstrating that the most sustainable elements built on existing organizational strengths rather than importing external models.
Recognition of Operational Limits and Systemic Constraints
The experience reinforced the necessity of acknowledging limits when facing significant threats that exceed individual or organizational capacity to control. Operating within contexts where state systems lack solidity created substantial constraints for organizational security efforts. When foundational state institutions fail to provide adequate security frameworks, network-level safety strategies remain inherently limited in scope and effectiveness.
Looking Forward
Sustainability Within Geographical Variation
Future sustainability requires acknowledging that organizational recovery varies significantly based on geographical location and threat exposure. Organizations that experienced direct targeting face different challenges than those that expanded operations to serve displaced populations. Sustainable approaches must account for these location-specific realities while maintaining continuous contextual awareness through rigorous analysis and risk assessment.
Strategic Coordination and Systemic Change Requirements
Future sustainability depends on establishing coordination mechanisms with humanitarian, development, and local community actors to create stronger collective security networks. Strategic planning must account for escalation scenarios while maintaining organizational clarity about primary mission objectives and balanced approaches between protection and acceptance strategies.
The fundamental limitation remains the absence of effective state-level security infrastructure, meaning civil society organizations continue assuming responsibilities beyond their capacity. The most significant barrier encountered was the absence of effective safety and security strategy at the national level, affecting organizations differently based on their geographical location.
