In many parts of the world, SOS Children’s Villages works in difficult conditions — but in some contexts, the challenges go far beyond difficult. In settings of war, protracted violence, state failure, and deep insecurity, providing protection and care to children becomes a matter of both courage and constant ethical reflection.

Angela Rosales, Acting CEO of SOS Children’s Villages International and former National Director in Colombia; Faimy C. Loiseau, National Director in Haiti; and Limia Ahmed, National Director in Sudan, each know firsthand the weight of these challenges. Their leadership has been shaped by crisis — Colombia during the decades-long armed conflict, Haiti amid near-total state collapse and gang rule, and Sudan under the violence and fragmentation of civil war.

Navigating daily risks

“In Port-au-Prince, Haiti, almost everything is affected by insecurity,” says Faimy C. Loiseau. “With most roads under gang control, and the airport closed, transport of supplies and field visits are regularly delayed, cancelled, or simply impossible.”

For Limia Ahmed, the breakdown of public systems in Sudan after more than two years of civil war mirrors this fragility. “Access to communities becomes a challenge sometimes, public institutions are often non-functional or functioning with low capacity, and basic services like birth registration or family tracing are disrupted,” she says. “We are forced to work in isolation or through improvised community networks, with heightened sensitivity to various tensions and security risks.”

The collapse of the state has serious consequences for children and families. In Haiti, Loiseau notes how displacement, poverty, and service breakdown have made communities more dependent on the support of organizations like SOS Children’s Villages. “This makes them more dependent on the organization’s intervention,” she explains.

Angela Rosales, reflecting on her experience in Colombia, agrees that when the state is absent or fragile, the risks to children multiply — and so organizations need to be prepared to fill the gap. "In SOS Children’s Villages, we have learned to be agile and respond according to the context, to act swiftly to protect children, sometimes stepping in where no others are present.”

Responding when systems fail

In conflict, official systems and protocols often fall apart. Responding to children’s needs cannot wait.

“In Haiti, at any time of day or night, local authorities request from the organization to urgently take in children for their safety — as no other facility is available,” says Loiseau. “There’s no time to wait for approval… sometimes the proper documentation arrives weeks later.”

Ahmed describes similar experiences in Sudan. “Permissions and nominations from authorities can take longer… this in general affects our operation and the fast track of our programme implementation,” she says. The reality of conflict forces teams to act quickly while still trying to align with core child protection principles.

Rosales emphasizes that this is where preparation matters: “Staff must be equipped to make difficult decisions under pressure, with a clear understanding of both the protocols and the flexibility needed in emergencies.”

Drawing ethical boundaries under pressure

Operating in fragile or authoritarian environments forces humanitarian organizations to walk a fine line. Adapting to local realities is sometimes necessary — but it cannot lead to complicity. Survival does not justify surrendering our values.

“This is where red lines are essential,” says Ahmed. “We never partner with actors who promote or participate in violence against children. Transparency and principled neutrality — meaning we remain impartial in conflict while upholding core humanitarian values — are our safeguards, and when adaptation risks crossing into complicity, we escalate decisions to leadership levels.”

Loiseau is equally clear: “The red line is never to negotiate with armed bandits and terrorist groups, whatever the reason. Also, one should never lose its integrity. No matter the circumstances, never enter into corruption.”

Ethical clarity does not eliminate moral tension. Even in situations where compromises are necessary — such as cooperation with systems that fall short of international standards — the overriding goal is always the same: to protect children without abandoning ethical principles. “The line is crossed when adaptation becomes accommodation of abuse. Children’s rights must always prevail,” says Rosales.

Staying or leaving: An impossible choice

Perhaps the hardest decision leaders face is whether to maintain a presence in unsafe conditions or pull back to protect their teams.

“This is one of the toughest dilemmas,” says Ahmed of Sudan. “Withdrawing may offer short-term security, but it leaves children exposed, especially in areas where no other actor remains.”

She describes the use of “hibernation plans,” in which services are scaled down to reduce risk but continue in essential form. “We weigh this by mapping risk scenarios, monitoring the safety of staff and children, and reviewing operational feasibility regularly.”

For Rosales, the question is deeply personal: “What happens to the children if we cannot act?” she asks. “Sometimes, we cannot do what we ideally would like to because the context simply doesn’t allow it. In those moments, the goal is to find the most ethical and effective compromise.”

Loiseau of Haiti is unequivocal: “Inaction or exiting cannot be up for discussion. The needs are too important and too high. Children cannot protect themselves alone.”

Possibility in the midst of fragility

Despite these overwhelming challenges, all three leaders affirm that meaningful child protection work is still possible — but it requires new ways of thinking and acting.

“Child protection in these contexts demands creativity, courage, and compromise,” says Ahmed. “The biggest lesson is that protection doesn't always mean presence — sometimes, empowering communities to take over localized protection systems is more sustainable and safer.”

She adds: “Another key insight is that change is possible, even if slow. But we must acknowledge our limits — we cannot fix broken systems alone. Advocacy, partnerships, and long-term commitment are essential for systemic impact.”

In Haiti, community-based approaches have become essential. “In Santo, the community protects the infrastructure,” says Loiseau. “They warn us of possible demonstrations… they provide a degree of protection.”

Even amid violence, there are glimmers of hope. “When the students and staff from the (SOS Children’s Villages) Hermann Gmeiner schools step outside to come to school,” Loiseau reflects, “it is like stepping from a dangerous world into a fragile but real haven of safety and hope.”

Why we stay

For SOS Children’s Villages, operating in fragile and authoritarian contexts is never easy. While danger and fear may define the setting, they do not define the response. The decisions are complex, the stakes are high, and the moral terrain is constantly shifting. But the mission remains unchanged: to protect and care for children — especially when no one else can.

“Ultimately, our goal is to stabilize operations as soon as possible, to comply with policies and international standards,” says Rosales. “But in the critical moments of a crisis, we act — because children’s lives are at risk.”