Organizations often hesitate to enter into retainer agreements with security or risk-management companies. The difficulty is understandable: a retainer requires committing funds to a service that may never be used, making it difficult to justify when there is no immediate, tangible return.
Crisis situations, however, demonstrate the value of having that capability secured in advance. When a conflict or other major emergency breaks out suddenly, demand for security, evacuation and emergency-response services can increase dramatically. Resources and local providers quickly become constrained, and organizations that have not established their response channels in advance may find themselves competing for limited capacity. Recent crises and wars in the Middle East have illustrated this clearly. Those that already had their evacuation arrangements secured—whether through a retainer or an existing relationship with a capable security or risk-management company—were generally in a much stronger position to leave. Those trying to arrange evacuation after a crisis had begun could find themselves facing delays, uncertainty and improvised solutions.
This is where the value of a retainer becomes clearer. It is not simply payment for a service before it is needed; it is an investment in preparedness and in having an established framework for responding when a crisis occurs.
Borders: A Question of Access
Crossing a border during a crisis involves more than having transportation and getting to the border. Border crossings operate according to their own capacity, documentation requirements, operating hours and security restrictions, all of which can change with little notice.
For an organization trying to evacuate employees, this means that planning cannot begin when the crisis has already started. The organization needs to understand in advance who can cross, what documentation or permissions are required, what transportation arrangements are needed on each side, and what alternatives exist if the primary crossing becomes unavailable. A person may be able to reach the border, but that does not necessarily mean they can cross it.
Example: Allenby Bridge, 2023–2024
The Allenby/King Hussein Bridge between the West Bank and Jordan provides a good illustration. During 2023–2024, there were periods when only around 1,000 people were allowed to cross in either direction during a one-hour window. For organizations with employees holding Palestinian IDs, crossing into Jordan was at times almost impossible.
The practical implication is that an evacuation plan cannot treat a border as simply a point on a map. Its capacity, restrictions and accessibility can determine whether an otherwise viable evacuation route can actually be used.
Logistics: The Cost of Urgency
An evacuation depends on multiple arrangements working together: transportation, border access, airport assistance, accommodation, personnel and onward travel. If one element becomes unavailable or cannot be coordinated at the required time, the entire movement can be affected.
Transportation may be secured on one side of a border while, due to increased demand and limited availability, it becomes difficult to secure transportation on the other. Meet-and-greet services at major airports can also become fully booked, even though assistance navigating an overwhelmed airport can be essential when thousands of people are trying to leave at once.
The pressure created by a crisis can also change the behavior of the market. As demand surges and resources become limited, some providers take advantage of the urgency surrounding a crisis to maximize what they can charge. Scarce assets may be given to whoever pays more, even when they have already been committed to another organization.
Example: Beirut
In Beirut, a vessel had been booked by an international organization for evacuation. Another organization subsequently secured the vessel, reportedly offering five times the original price. The first organization was therefore left without the asset it had planned to use and was unable to evacuate at the intended time.
We experienced a similar situation when a local ground provider withdrew an asset that had been committed to us for a client's evacuation.
We moved quickly, offered more than the competing organization and secured the asset back for our client, absorbing the additional cost rather than passing it on to the client.
The case also highlights why the choice of the security company matters. The company needs to have the financial and operational capability to maintain its commitments when circumstances change. A provider needs the financial capacity to absorb unexpected costs when necessary, and the operational capacity to mobilize people, local ground providers and alternative solutions quickly when the original plan is disrupted. A retainer, therefore, is not simply about having someone to call in an emergency. It is about establishing a relationship with a provider and having an agreed framework for responding when delivering the required service becomes significantly more difficult or expensive than originally anticipated.
