On 10 June 2026, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Conflict Prevention, Conflict Resolution, and Peacebuilding and members of the Creating Safer Space research network held an event at the UK Houses of Parliament on “Stories of Self-Protection: Centring Agency in the Protection of Civilians”.
The event arose from the observation that, at a time when the need to protect civilians from armed violence is more urgent than ever, the capacity and willingness of the international community to respond appears to be in decline. This reinforces the need to better understand and support community-led protection.
Building on evidence from the Creating Safer Space research network, the event highlighted a critical yet often overlooked dimension of civilian protection: the strategies and practices that individuals and communities use to protect themselves when international assistance is delayed, insufficient, or absent.
Moderated by Lord Jack McConnell, the event brought together academics, civil society practitioners, Members of Parliament, and civil servants to:
- Share evidence on community self-protection from conflict and atrocity contexts.
- Identify priorities to strengthen UK policy and practice on community self-protection.
Panel contributions by CSS researchers Nancy Annan, Chas Morrison, Marwan Darweish, and Berit Bliesemann de Guevara explored:
- Why and where this matters, from neglected crises to high-profile conflicts.
- Practical strategies for community self-protection, with evidence from Cameroon.
- How it functions through embedded mechanisms, with evidence from South Sudan.
- Policy blind spots in external support to self-protection, with evidence from Palestine.
Prof. Berit Bliesemann de Guevara (Aberystwyth University) introduced the terrain of unarmed civilian protection (UCP) and community self-protection, noting that it comprises a wide range of proactive nonviolent approaches, including early warning and early response, negotiation with armed actors, and protective presence and accompaniment, among others, which are carried out by self-protecting communities and are sometimes supported by specialised NGOs and INGOs. Some of the key points she raised were:
- These proactive nonviolent strategies help civilians in different violent contexts effectively to keep themselves and others safe.
- Local initiatives matter today more than before, especially in the wake of an increase in armed conflicts across the world and in their duration and complexity.
- Data from Humanitarian Action, the Peace Research Institute Oslo ( PRIO) and the UN show that the number of civilians in need of protection from violence has risen significantly in recent years, with record levels of displacement and humanitarian need globally.
- At the same time, there has been a reduction in funding from donor states which has hollowed out previous humanitarian and peacebuilding system. However, this is both a challenge and an opportunity to rethink some of the old practices used in civilian protection that may need re-invention.
- The reduced funding does not mean that people in the UK are not concerned about conflicts happening elsewhere. Drawing from the numbers of solidarity protests and civil action, it is evident that people do care, while at the same time there is a reluctance to support military interventions.
- Over the past 5 years, the international Creating Safer Space research network comprising 70 organisations has studied in 26 projects across 11 countries how unarmed community self-protection works and formulated recommendations of how it can be supported better. This research provides clear evidence that community-led unarmed protection works in a wide range of violent contexts .
She hence concluded by suggesting that community-led UCP could be supported to address the massive gap between rising protection need and stagnating or declining protection capacity, and that the UK focus should shift towards supporting local action, rather than imposing external interventions.
Dr. Nancy Annan (Coventry University) reported on findings from her research in Cameroon, focusing on how civilians caught in a conflict lasting almost a decade find ways to protect themselves. Some of the approaches she mentioned include:
- Early warning strategies: Affected communities have come together to form what they call ‘unarmed vigilante groups’- a community watch groups composed of young men, mainly unarmed (with whistles and phones) who keep watch at strategic locations in the communities to alert community members of impending violence in order for them to escape to safe locations. Families and communities maximize Whatsapp and social media platforms to share regular security updates either through group calls or messages to alert fellow civilians. In remote communities where internet and electricity access is limited, people use alternative methods such word of mouth, coded languages (verbal and sign language -e.g.waving means ‘don’t move/stand still’), whistles, church bells, pots and pans as well as the town crier to raise alarm of impending violence.
- Women-led Protection Networks: Women are also actively engaged in mediation, dialogue, and advocacy. Groups such as Southwest Northwest Women’s Taskforce (SNWOT) and the Northwest Women Peace Builders (WOFEM) have been engaging in mediation and dialogues with warring factions calling from an end to the violence. They use their traditional ‘lamentation’ campaign (nonviolent resistance protests where women sit down wailing with peace branches) to call for peace. They also negotiate the release of kidnapped civilians. Women have also mobilised themselves forming what we call the ‘sisterhoods of protection’ where they move and work in each other’s farms in groups to prevent sexual violence from armed groups. Older women also use their role as mothers and grandmothers to physically position themselves as protective barriers (interpositioning) between armed groups and communities to help avoid and prevent attacks.
- Safe passages and accompaniment: Communities have also built safe passages and paths behind their homes or villages to enable them run to safe locations including – farms, church, palace, neighbouring villages or regions. At night, community members with boats or canoes accompany vulnerable groups to cross the river to neighbouring towns and regions for safety. Some community members, particularly those who own farms, have hosted people fleeing the conflict. An example is one local farmer who provided safety for 100 people in his farm while feeding the vulnerable. They do so out of a sense of mutual responsibility and the belief in supporting and protecting one another.
She concluded by noting that it is important to recognise and maximise the agency of communities experiencing conflict as this is crucial to ensuring sustainable and nonviolent forms of protection.
Dr. Chas Morrison (Coventry University) discussed some of the embedded mechanisms that are important to observe in conflict settings. These mechanisms, which draw on his team’s research in South Sudan and have much in common with spiritual practices elsewhere, include:
- Ethnic identity and its role in shaping political and social life. He observed that this has become particularly prominent in recent years in South Sudan. In fragile political contexts, people tend to identify more strongly with their tribe or ethnic group than with the nation.
- Leadership and authority are often tied to traditional structures (elders, chiefs, spiritual figures) within ethnic communities. Self-protection often features symbolic and esoteric practices.
- Christianity and Islam are commonly blended with traditional African beliefs as communities consider that spiritual practices and rituals play an important role in community life and are often linked to health, protection, prosperity, and livestock, particularly among pastoral groups.
- The idea of protection extends beyond purely physical security to include spiritual and communal dimensions (“one’s body is not more important than the soul”). Many everyday practices involve blessing or cursing objects, and elevating them to the realm of the sacred, with the power to defend, ward off, confuse, blind or harm the enemy by esoteric means. These might be cursed animal skins, charcoal, water, fire/smoke, leaves, ash circles, drumming, song, and dance.
- Covert and hidden meanings only accessible by the in-group. Symbols and signs to indicate (stones, arrows, vegetation).
- There is also hierarchy of spiritual power. For example, some ethnic groups’ elderly women practice a ritual whereby they pray and fast and don’t bathe. These austerities serve to protect the community.
He concluded by noting that such traditional mechanisms are undermined by the criminalisation and politicisation of modern conflict. Rather than asking whether these community-based approaches to civilian protection work, we should instead ask what it means to engage with communities with these cultural practices and worldview, even as the violence in South Sudan is extreme.
Dr. Marwan Darweish reflected on the ongoing conflict in Palestine and how Palestinians survive under these conditions. Some of the observation he makes from his research include:
- Social solidarity: The Palestinian extended family is form of support and resilience and serves as an important source of support in the face of attacks by the settlers and the army and they help them cope with daily risks and uncertainty
- Collective presence (strength in numbers) helps to reduce or deter violence, as larger groups are less vulnerable when moving through contested areas.
- International and Israeli organisations such Ta’ayush (means co-existence) Operation Dove, Italian, World Council of Churches accompaniment programme, and the Centre for Jewish nonviolence- US provide support by accompanying individuals in daily activities (e.g. going to school or farms). Their presence, particularly when they speak the language and understand local cultures, enhances feelings of security and solidarity among Palestinians, while also offering a degree of international visibility and protection
- Despite the conflict, there is a strong sense of pride and attachment to the land. Leaving is often seen as shameful and tied to loss of identity and belonging and this is why many keep holding on even as the situation worsens
He concluded by calling on the UK government to support such initiatives of civilian protection in Palestine by civil society organisations. Increase the leverage on Israel from top and grassroot level and impose sanctions on Israel and settlement products and leaders and help this process to stop.
Roundtable participants were then invited to reflect on:
- How the evidence reinforces or challenges current understandings of civilian protection.
- Opportunities for UK policy and programming to support community self-protection.
- One step the UK Government can take and how the expertise in the room can contribute.
Participants highlighted the important role that local initiatives, including women’s groups, inter-community networks, and broader civil society organisations, can play in reducing violence, building trust, and creating bridges across divided communities. Such initiatives can foster cooperation and position communities as active agents of peace and protection. However, their effectiveness is often constrained by retaliation, escalating violence, entrenched divisions, and the fragility of local agreements in conflict settings.
Documentation of human rights violations, atrocity mapping, hotspot identification, and international monitoring were recognised as useful tools for civilian protection. These efforts can help communities anticipate risks, strengthen early warning systems, and improve preparedness. However, participants stressed that documentation does not automatically lead to accountability. Significant gaps remain between evidence collection and actual justice or protective action at national and international levels. The impact of documentation is often shaped by political power dynamics and geopolitical realities. While reporting, filming abuses, legal advocacy, and strategic litigation can sometimes contribute to practical gains and may have a limited deterrent effect, local communities face clear limits in their ability to hold perpetrators accountable on their own.
There was broad agreement that external actors should support community-based protection efforts, but that assistance must be: context-specific; driven by local expertise and priorities; sensitive to cultural and spiritual understandings of protection; designed to strengthen rather than replace community agency. Speakers argued that current localisation efforts are often constrained by bureaucratic systems that misunderstand what meaningful localisation involves. Effective support requires working closely with local experts, amplifying community voices, and creating flexible funding and implementation mechanisms.
Speakers noted several practical challenges when supporting civilian-led protection: difficulties in monitoring and reporting outcomes; risks that participation may expose communities to additional threats; questions around long-term sustainability. The model of directly asking communities what they need to feel safer was highlighted as a promising approach. Through locally managed grants, communities are empowered to design their own protection interventions. Participants emphasised that sustainability and local ownership are more important than creating long-term dependence on external funding. There were also calls for greater transparency from donors regarding existing programmes, funding allocations, and results in order to improve coordination and reduce duplication.
A significant discussion centred on the fact that some locally effective protection strategies may not align neatly with international norms or Western expectations. Examples included: informal mediation; marriage alliances; negotiated arrangements with armed actors; payments or accommodations aimed at preventing attacks. Speakers stressed the importance of understanding how communities themselves define protection and avoiding simplistic judgements about local survival strategies. However, they also cautioned against transferring excessive risk to communities or expecting them to compensate for failures to address wider conflict drivers at national and international levels. There was recognition that legal and policy barriers, including aspects of counter-terrorism financing frameworks, can sometimes restrict pragmatic engagement with local protection realities.
The discussion highlighted persistent underfunding of civilian protection efforts. Funding currently comes from international donors, private philanthropy, and volunteers and community contributions. Many community-led protection initiatives continue to operate with little or no formal funding. Participants noted the importance of: building trust through transparency; ensuring communities understand the objectives of external support; developing stronger communities of practice and learning networks among donors and practitioners; investing in research to better understand local social dynamics and conflict drivers.
Discussion addressed how the FCDO might more effectively support community self-protection, peacebuilding, and early warning systems. Participants suggested that: early warning and early response mechanisms have demonstrated value; support for community self-protection should be carefully tailored to local contexts; programmes should avoid politicising protection efforts; external interventions must not undermine local leadership, ownership, or agency. The overall view was that community-led approaches can make an important contribution to civilian protection but should complement, rather than substitute for, action at national and international levels to address the structural causes of conflict.
Acknowledgements
The event was co-organised with the APPG Secretariat – Miranda Hurst and Jack Farrell – hosted by Search for Common Ground and kindly supported by Coventry University’s ESRC Impact Acceleration Account.