The notion of an “evacuation plan” comes up regularly in discussions on security in West Africa, whether for international organisations, NGOs, companies or expatriate families. Behind the term, expectations often differ widely: some imagine an almost military scenario, others a simple list of emergency contacts.
A realistic evacuation plan lies between these two extremes. It does not guarantee safety, but it helps reduce confusion, limit certain foreseeable mistakes and clarify everyone’s roles. The aim is to remain at a strategic and organisational level, without going into tactical or operational considerations.
What an evacuation plan can – and cannot – do
A realistic evacuation plan mainly serves to:
- organise decision-making in a degraded situation (who decides what, when and on what criteria);
- divide responsibilities between headquarters, the country office, local partners and individuals;
- identify critical dependencies (transport, communication, documents, coordination with other actors);
- anticipate administrative constraints (visas, residence permits, identity documents, exit authorisations);
- prepare minimum continuity of essential activities.
On the other hand, a plan, however detailed, cannot:
- predict precisely how a crisis will unfold (routes, timings, the behaviour of armed actors, decisions by the authorities);
- remove the uncertainty, stress or element of risk inherent in any evacuation;
- replace real-time context analysis and the judgement of managers on the ground.
A realistic evacuation plan therefore rests on a logic of scenarios and principles, rather than on a fixed script supposed to work in every situation.
Starting from the context: vulnerabilities, constraints and room for manoeuvre
The first step is to clarify the context in which an evacuation might be considered. In West Africa, the possible triggers are varied: rapid security deterioration, political violence, blocked roads, border closures, urban riots, health crises, natural disasters, etc.
A realistic evacuation plan rests on a few structuring questions:
- Who is concerned? Expatriate staff, national staff, families, subcontractors, local partners. Administrative status and vulnerabilities are not the same.
- Where are the people? Political capital, secondary city, border area, isolated rural area. Accessibility and the presence of state or international actors vary greatly.
- What are the mobility constraints? Road quality, the rainy season, official and unofficial checkpoints, availability of commercial flights, proximity to a functioning airport or a passable land border.
- What are the political and administrative constraints? Relations with local authorities, rules for leaving the country, dependence on official authorisations, status agreements for international organisations.
This scoping work makes it clear that evacuation is not a purely logistical act, but a decision embedded in an often shifting political, security and administrative environment.
Clarifying crisis governance and decision thresholds
A frequent difficulty lies in uncertainty about who decides on an evacuation, and on what basis. Without going into operational detail, a realistic plan should specify:
- the roles of headquarters and the field: who raises the alert, who makes proposals, who validates the final decision;
- priority communication channels: telephone, encrypted messaging, email, relay through another regional office, etc.;
- alert thresholds: for example, distinguishing between strengthened security measures, reorganisation of activities, internal relocation, and partial or full evacuation.
These thresholds are never purely quantitative. They combine factual elements (closure of an airport, a curfew, a rise in violent incidents within a given perimeter) and qualitative assessments (reliability of local authorities, political tensions, weak signals reported by partners).
A credible plan does not claim to codify everything, but frames decision-making to avoid deadlocks, contradictory instructions or reactions that come too late.
Identifying evacuation options without setting them in stone
Rather than focusing on a single scenario, it is more realistic to identify several options in principle, accepting that they will need to be adapted when the time comes. Depending on the context, these options may include:
- internal relocation to another city or a less exposed region;
- departure by air, if a commercial airport remains operational;
- departure by land to a neighbouring country, if borders and roads remain open;
- an evacuation coordinated with other organisations, embassies or international agencies.
The aim is not to describe a hypothetical route or timetable in detail, but to:
- map possible exit points (airports, border posts, relay towns);
- identify critical dependencies (airlines, transport providers, administrative authorisations, consular support);
- take into account the risk of saturation (traffic jams towards the airport, queues at borders, a sudden influx of applicants for visas or travel documents).
This options-based approach forces recognition that some exit routes may quickly become unavailable, and that a switch to another option must be anticipated at a strategic level.
Preparing people, not just procedures
A realistic evacuation plan is not limited to a document. It relies on the ability of the people concerned to understand what is at stake, to know their responsibilities and to react in a coordinated way.
A few structuring elements can be included without going into operational detail:
- essential information: documents to keep up to date (passports, residence permits, vaccination records, emergency contacts), a basic understanding of how local authorities and consular services work;
- a clear division of roles: who centralises information, who liaises with the authorities, who follows the situation of national staff, who manages relations with partners and service providers;
- regular awareness-raising: presenting the plan to newcomers, periodic reminders, lessons learned after each episode of tension or alert.
Psychological preparation is also important. An evacuation, even a well-organised one, is often experienced as abrupt, causing anxiety and guilt, particularly when local staff or partners cannot be evacuated under the same conditions. A realistic plan recognises this human and social dimension.
Taking local partners and national staff into account
In many West African contexts, organisations rely heavily on national staff and local partners. A plan covering only expatriates would be incomplete and could generate tensions, or even lasting misunderstandings.
Without promising what cannot be promised, it is possible to include points of clarification in the evacuation plan:
- a distinction between what falls under the organisation’s legal obligations and what falls under solidarity or one-off support;
- arrangements for transparent communication with local teams in the event of a rapid deterioration of the situation;
- reflection on non-physical forms of support: administrative assistance, help with internal relocation, psychosocial support, maintaining some short-term income, in line with the organisation’s internal policies.
This dimension is particularly sensitive in areas marked by strong inequalities between categories of staff, and by sometimes critical perceptions of the role of international actors.
Linking the evacuation plan with business continuity
Evacuation is generally not an end in itself. It forms part of a broader approach to crisis management and business continuity. A realistic plan should therefore address a few key questions:
- which activities are considered essential and must be maintained, even remotely or in reduced form?
- which information systems, data and documents must remain accessible in the event of a hasty departure?
- how can relations with local communities, authorities and partners be preserved as far as possible, to limit the effects of an abrupt break?
Business continuity does not mean staying on site at all costs, but anticipating how activities will resume or be partially maintained once the most acute phase of the crisis has passed.
Testing the plan regularly and being willing to revise it
A realistic evacuation plan is by definition evolving. West African contexts are marked by rapid change: political transitions, redeployment of armed actors, reorientation of international cooperation, changes in visa or movement regimes.
Two elements are decisive in preventing the plan from becoming obsolete:
- simulation exercises at a strategic level (information flows, decision-making, internal and external coordination), without going into military-style scenarios;
- periodic updating of the baseline assumptions: accessibility of airports and borders, configuration of transport networks, changes in diplomatic presence, developments in private or public security arrangements.
The aim is not to multiply documents, but to ensure that key people share a common understanding of priorities and constraints.
Avoiding two pitfalls: the illusion of control and fatalism
Preparing a realistic evacuation plan requires a balance between two opposing tendencies:
- the illusion of control, when one believes that a very detailed document will make it possible to control the course of a complex crisis;
- fatalism, which consists of considering that in an unstable context “nothing is possible” and that planning is pointless.
A pragmatic approach recognises uncertainty and the limits of planning, while seeking to reduce the most obvious vulnerabilities: unclear responsibilities, a lack of up-to-date contacts, dependence on a single exit route, poor knowledge of administrative constraints, and no consideration of local staff.
In West Africa as elsewhere, a realistic evacuation plan is not measured by the number of pages produced, but by its ability to clarify decisions, structure communication and maintain, as far as possible, the coherence of action in times of high tension.