Saving Lives Together
An interactive introduction to security collaboration between UN agencies, NGOs, and International Organisations (IOs).
Start
Supported by
Conclusion
Collaboration in action
About SLT
Introduction
Introduction
This short online module is intended to explain Saving Lives Together (SLT) in an interactive manner. It is intended for anyone in the UN and NGO system, regardless of whether or not they hold a formal security function. Following a short introduction on SLT, an interactive scenario demonstrates how coordination between the UN and NGOs can work. The exercise is designed to explore decision-making, not to test knowledge or assign grades. There are no right or wrong answers, only different choices with different consequences. The goal is to reflect on how decisions are made, shared, and coordinated, and to understand how cooperation between UN and NGO actors can improve safety, trust, and operational effectiveness in complex environments.
Next
Conclusion
Collaboration in action
About SLT
Introduction
Core areas of collaboration
About SLT
Hover over the icons below.
Saving Lives Together (SLT) is based on the idea that working together in an organised way helps humanitarian and development actors make better decisions, reduce risks to their staff, and deliver aid safely to people in need. SLT provides a space for collaboration between the UN and NGOs, building trust, communication, and coordination, which are key to managing security risks effectively.
Next
Conclusion
Collaboration in action
About SLT
Introduction
Collaboration in action
The following exercise is designed to reflect on how decisions are made, shared, and coordinated, and to understand how cooperation between UN and NGO actors can improve safety, trust, and operational effectiveness in complex environments. There are no right or wrong answers, only different choices with different consequences, each with its own risks, trade-offs, and consequences.
Each organisation’s decision will depend on its mandate, risk tolerance, resources, and understanding of the local context. What works in one situation may not be appropriate in another. The goal is to reflect on the SLT framework and how it can support and coordinate decision-making effectively during an escalating incident or crisis.
Start
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Overview of scenario
Objective
Situation
Inject 1
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 1: Communication Breakdown
Overnight, the main mobile network and internet services go down. Staff in several NGO compounds can no longer reach UNDSS or the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) via normal channels. There are unverified reports of armed groups moving toward the area where many NGOs have offices. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Waiting for verified information from UNDSS could ensure accuracy and avoid panic, but it could delay action; staff may be exposed if the threat materialises quickly.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Activating emergency comms systems demonstrates proactive security management and prioritises staff safety, but risks spreading misinformation if later reports disprove the threat.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 2: Staff Seeking Refuge
Several NGO staff report that their compound has come under small-arms fire. They are requesting permission to move to the UNMARN base for safety. Road access is unpredictable, and there are checkpoints along the way. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Fast response may save lives if the compound is under direct threat, but could expose staff to ambush or crossfire en route.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Coordinating with UNDSS and the INGO forum to verify route safety, organise joint convoys or staggered movement may be slower to implement but increases the chance of a secure, coordinated evacuation. It also demonstrates trust and cooperation between agencies.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 3: Looting and Access
Two NGO warehouses containing food and medical supplies are looted overnight. Local community leaders contact you, offering to “protect” the remaining assets in exchange for a payment or a share of supplies. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Accepting local offers to safeguard assets may prevent further looting in the short term, but risks compromising humanitarian principles and could create precedents for armed group extortion.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Opting for coordinated discussions with the SMT/HCT, the authorities and community representatives may be slower and may result in more losses initially, but upholds neutrality and strengthens collective advocacy for humanitarian access.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 4: Conflicting Information
A rumor spreads that a ceasefire has been declared. Some organisations begin preparing to resume movement, while UNDSS reports that clashes continue on the outskirts of Lombasa. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Allowing limited staff movement and resumption of operations restores operations quickly if the ceasefire holds, but could endanger staff if fighting resumes unexpectedly.
Next
Next
Back
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Awaiting information from UNDSS or the HCT prioritises safety and shows respect for joint coordination mechanisms, although it may delay urgent assistance delivery.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 5: Post-Crisis Coordination
Fighting has subsided after several days. Staff begin returning to their compounds to assess damage. Some organisations are eager to restart operations immediately, while others call for a pause to conduct a joint security assessment. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Resuming operations independently results in a quick restoration of aid delivery, but risks overlooking new or residual threats and sends a mixed message on coordination.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Participating in a joint security review may result in a slower rollout, but reinforces collective learning, trust, and safer re-engagement for all partners.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 6: Lines of Responsibility
Following several tense days in Lombasa, the UN Designated Official (DO) releases an advisory urging all UN personnel to remain in place until further notice. Several INGO staff assume this directive applies to them as well and begin suspending operations, even in areas where their own security assessments indicate conditions are stable. Some NGO country directors question whether they are bound by the DO’s decision or should proceed based on their own risk analysis. Confusion spreads among staff about who has the final say on movement and safety decisions. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Halting all movement as per the DO’s directive ensures strong alignment with the UN position and may simplify coordination, but could unnecessarily delay critical humanitarian operations or erode NGO autonomy in decision-making.
Conclusion
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Conducting independent risk assessments reinforces NGO responsibility for their own staff and operations, supports the principle of independent security management, and encourages active coordination, but requires clear communication to avoid mixed messages or perceptions of inconsistency.
Conclusion
Back
Conclusion
Collaboration in action
About SLT
Introduction
Conclusion
This exercise highlights how timely coordination and information sharing are critical for staff safety and operational continuity. Security risk management decisions are highly context-dependent, shaped by local dynamics, access constraints, organisational mandates, and risk tolerance, and often require balancing duty of care, operational needs, and humanitarian principles under uncertainty.
While INGOs remain accountable for their own risk assessments and duty of care, options that favour coordination, verification, and principle-based action generally lead to stronger outcomes. Effective collaboration between the UN, INGOs, and local partners - grounded in trust, communication, and mutual respect - is essential to reducing risk and protecting humanitarian access. Through this module, we hope you have gained a clearer understanding of shared security responsibilities and the role of Saving Lives Together in supporting coordinated, context-appropriate decision-making.
Objective
The objective of this exercise is to explore how NGOs and UN actors can use the SLT framework to coordinate effectively during an escalating incident or crisis. For each ‘inject’, there are two response options. Choose the option that you think is most appropriate given the circumstances. Both options have consequences; neither one nor the other is necessarily the ‘best’ option. Click on each one to read more about the possible consequences of each response option.
Situation
Tensions have been building in the capital city Lombasa, in Nariqua, following weeks of political instability and reports of troop movements in and around the city. One morning, heavy fighting erupts between government and opposition forces. Over the next 48 hours, clashes spread across several neighborhoods, including areas housing humanitarian compounds and UN offices.
Power and communications become unreliable, and road access to the airport is temporarily cut. Several NGO compounds are looted, and there are reports of armed men entering residential areas. Some humanitarian staff seek refuge in the UNMARN base - the United Nations Mission for the Assistance and Recovery of Nariqua - while others remain in their compounds awaiting guidance.
On the second day of violence the SMT (Security Management Team) is activated to bring together UNDSS, INGO security focal points, and the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) for a joint approach.
Saving Lives Together
Alyssa Thurston
Created on October 24, 2025
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Simple Branching Scenario Mobile
View
Branching Scenario: Leadership Decisions
View
Branching Scenario: Digital Alert
View
Conflict Resolution: Branching Scenarios
View
Simple Branching Scenario
View
Choose Your Own Story
View
Branching Scenario: Save Christmas
Explore all templates
Transcript
Saving Lives Together
An interactive introduction to security collaboration between UN agencies, NGOs, and International Organisations (IOs).
Start
Supported by
Conclusion
Collaboration in action
About SLT
Introduction
Introduction
This short online module is intended to explain Saving Lives Together (SLT) in an interactive manner. It is intended for anyone in the UN and NGO system, regardless of whether or not they hold a formal security function. Following a short introduction on SLT, an interactive scenario demonstrates how coordination between the UN and NGOs can work. The exercise is designed to explore decision-making, not to test knowledge or assign grades. There are no right or wrong answers, only different choices with different consequences. The goal is to reflect on how decisions are made, shared, and coordinated, and to understand how cooperation between UN and NGO actors can improve safety, trust, and operational effectiveness in complex environments.
Next
Conclusion
Collaboration in action
About SLT
Introduction
Core areas of collaboration
About SLT
Hover over the icons below.
Saving Lives Together (SLT) is based on the idea that working together in an organised way helps humanitarian and development actors make better decisions, reduce risks to their staff, and deliver aid safely to people in need. SLT provides a space for collaboration between the UN and NGOs, building trust, communication, and coordination, which are key to managing security risks effectively.
Next
Conclusion
Collaboration in action
About SLT
Introduction
Collaboration in action
The following exercise is designed to reflect on how decisions are made, shared, and coordinated, and to understand how cooperation between UN and NGO actors can improve safety, trust, and operational effectiveness in complex environments. There are no right or wrong answers, only different choices with different consequences, each with its own risks, trade-offs, and consequences. Each organisation’s decision will depend on its mandate, risk tolerance, resources, and understanding of the local context. What works in one situation may not be appropriate in another. The goal is to reflect on the SLT framework and how it can support and coordinate decision-making effectively during an escalating incident or crisis.
Start
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Overview of scenario
Objective
Situation
Inject 1
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 1: Communication Breakdown
Overnight, the main mobile network and internet services go down. Staff in several NGO compounds can no longer reach UNDSS or the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) via normal channels. There are unverified reports of armed groups moving toward the area where many NGOs have offices. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Waiting for verified information from UNDSS could ensure accuracy and avoid panic, but it could delay action; staff may be exposed if the threat materialises quickly.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Activating emergency comms systems demonstrates proactive security management and prioritises staff safety, but risks spreading misinformation if later reports disprove the threat.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 2: Staff Seeking Refuge
Several NGO staff report that their compound has come under small-arms fire. They are requesting permission to move to the UNMARN base for safety. Road access is unpredictable, and there are checkpoints along the way. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Fast response may save lives if the compound is under direct threat, but could expose staff to ambush or crossfire en route.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Coordinating with UNDSS and the INGO forum to verify route safety, organise joint convoys or staggered movement may be slower to implement but increases the chance of a secure, coordinated evacuation. It also demonstrates trust and cooperation between agencies.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 3: Looting and Access
Two NGO warehouses containing food and medical supplies are looted overnight. Local community leaders contact you, offering to “protect” the remaining assets in exchange for a payment or a share of supplies. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Accepting local offers to safeguard assets may prevent further looting in the short term, but risks compromising humanitarian principles and could create precedents for armed group extortion.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Opting for coordinated discussions with the SMT/HCT, the authorities and community representatives may be slower and may result in more losses initially, but upholds neutrality and strengthens collective advocacy for humanitarian access.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 4: Conflicting Information
A rumor spreads that a ceasefire has been declared. Some organisations begin preparing to resume movement, while UNDSS reports that clashes continue on the outskirts of Lombasa. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Allowing limited staff movement and resumption of operations restores operations quickly if the ceasefire holds, but could endanger staff if fighting resumes unexpectedly.
Next
Next
Back
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Awaiting information from UNDSS or the HCT prioritises safety and shows respect for joint coordination mechanisms, although it may delay urgent assistance delivery.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 5: Post-Crisis Coordination
Fighting has subsided after several days. Staff begin returning to their compounds to assess damage. Some organisations are eager to restart operations immediately, while others call for a pause to conduct a joint security assessment. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Resuming operations independently results in a quick restoration of aid delivery, but risks overlooking new or residual threats and sends a mixed message on coordination.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Participating in a joint security review may result in a slower rollout, but reinforces collective learning, trust, and safer re-engagement for all partners.
Next
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Inject 6: Lines of Responsibility
Following several tense days in Lombasa, the UN Designated Official (DO) releases an advisory urging all UN personnel to remain in place until further notice. Several INGO staff assume this directive applies to them as well and begin suspending operations, even in areas where their own security assessments indicate conditions are stable. Some NGO country directors question whether they are bound by the DO’s decision or should proceed based on their own risk analysis. Confusion spreads among staff about who has the final say on movement and safety decisions. Do you...
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Halting all movement as per the DO’s directive ensures strong alignment with the UN position and may simplify coordination, but could unnecessarily delay critical humanitarian operations or erode NGO autonomy in decision-making.
Conclusion
Back
Inject 6
Inject 4
Inject 5
Inject 3
Inject 1
Inject 2
Overview of scenario
Consequence: Conducting independent risk assessments reinforces NGO responsibility for their own staff and operations, supports the principle of independent security management, and encourages active coordination, but requires clear communication to avoid mixed messages or perceptions of inconsistency.
Conclusion
Back
Conclusion
Collaboration in action
About SLT
Introduction
Conclusion
This exercise highlights how timely coordination and information sharing are critical for staff safety and operational continuity. Security risk management decisions are highly context-dependent, shaped by local dynamics, access constraints, organisational mandates, and risk tolerance, and often require balancing duty of care, operational needs, and humanitarian principles under uncertainty.
While INGOs remain accountable for their own risk assessments and duty of care, options that favour coordination, verification, and principle-based action generally lead to stronger outcomes. Effective collaboration between the UN, INGOs, and local partners - grounded in trust, communication, and mutual respect - is essential to reducing risk and protecting humanitarian access. Through this module, we hope you have gained a clearer understanding of shared security responsibilities and the role of Saving Lives Together in supporting coordinated, context-appropriate decision-making.
Objective
The objective of this exercise is to explore how NGOs and UN actors can use the SLT framework to coordinate effectively during an escalating incident or crisis. For each ‘inject’, there are two response options. Choose the option that you think is most appropriate given the circumstances. Both options have consequences; neither one nor the other is necessarily the ‘best’ option. Click on each one to read more about the possible consequences of each response option.
Situation
Tensions have been building in the capital city Lombasa, in Nariqua, following weeks of political instability and reports of troop movements in and around the city. One morning, heavy fighting erupts between government and opposition forces. Over the next 48 hours, clashes spread across several neighborhoods, including areas housing humanitarian compounds and UN offices. Power and communications become unreliable, and road access to the airport is temporarily cut. Several NGO compounds are looted, and there are reports of armed men entering residential areas. Some humanitarian staff seek refuge in the UNMARN base - the United Nations Mission for the Assistance and Recovery of Nariqua - while others remain in their compounds awaiting guidance. On the second day of violence the SMT (Security Management Team) is activated to bring together UNDSS, INGO security focal points, and the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) for a joint approach.