Who Really Owns Access? Why Security Control Is Failing Delivery
Key Points:
Most access failures are misdiagnosed as security problems, leaving the real political, relational, or structural barriers unresolved.
When security owns access, decisions tend to prioritise risk avoidance over operational delivery.
Programme and security leaders often work to different definitions of access, creating gaps that stall delivery and erode trust.
Treating access as a strategic asset (not a procedural hurdle) is essential for sustaining presence in complex environments.
See also:
The Quiet Takeover
The project had money, permits and community meetings on record. The team never made it past the first gate.
No fighters, no protests, no threats. Just a padlock and a polite absence of welcome.
The Access & Security Manager took the call. Yet this was not a security problem. It was an access problem. The two are often confused.
Across aid, infrastructure and extractives, “access” has quietly migrated into the security portfolio. Risk frameworks dictate where teams can go. Clearance processes focus on movement safety. Access becomes another word for threat avoidance.
That may work in genuinely dangerous places. In calmer but politically knotted settings, it can have the opposite effect. Delivery stalls. Communities drift away. And the organisation loses the very presence it set out to protect.
What We Actually Mean by “Access”
Access is not a permit or a security clearance. It is the practical ability to work in a place, consistently and without obstruction.
This ability is shaped by perception, relationships, and context. You can have every approval in place and still be unable to proceed. Communities may be unresponsive. Local actors may resist without confrontation. Access is not guaranteed just because it looks safe.
It is also not static. Acceptance can shift. Support can fade. Frustration can build quietly. Access is a dynamic condition, held by others and always open to change.
In every sector (humanitarian, infrastructure, energy, or health) the ability to operate depends on more than safety. It depends on whether the conditions for presence have been earned, and whether they can be maintained.
Securitisation Explained and Why It’s a Trap
Securitisation happens when an issue is redefined as a threat. Once that happens, it is handed to the security function. The tools change. So do the priorities.
This pattern is visible in many contexts. Migration becomes a border threat. Protest becomes instability. And now, access becomes a safety risk.
When access is securitised, the focus shifts from enablement to protection. The question becomes whether it is safe enough to go, rather than whether the conditions for presence exist.
That framing flattens the problem. If a community blocks access due to mistrust, political friction, or exclusion, a security response will not resolve it. The problem is misunderstood. The solution is misapplied.
It also changes who leads. Security teams are trained to assess threat, not build legitimacy. When access falls to them alone, the relational side is lost. And when the risks are misread, access becomes harder to get back.
What’s the Harm in Letting Security Handle It?
At first, it makes sense. Security manages risk. They have protocols, training, and duty of care. If access is risky, why not put it under their mandate?
The issue is not whether security plays a role. It is what happens when access is managed entirely through a security lens.
Security thinking prioritises restriction and threat avoidance. This works when violence is the issue. But most access challenges are not rooted in active danger. They come from perception, politics, or poor engagement.
When access becomes a security task, it turns into journey management and permission protocols. The deeper work — building trust, navigating gatekeepers, repairing missteps — is often missing.
The result is frustration. Programme teams feel blocked. Security teams feel ignored. And the organisation loses its ability to read the real situation on the ground.
Seven Risks That Shape Access, and Only One Is Security
Access is shaped by more than safety. Below are seven distinct risk factors that determine whether presence is possible. These apply across all sectors.
Security
The most visible barrier. Conflict, crime, and instability shut down operations. This is where security planning is essential — but it is not the only factor.
Acceptance
How you are perceived by stakeholders matters. Acceptance exists on a spectrum, from hostility to active support. It changes over time, and it is rarely uniform. Monitoring shifts in perception is a key part of access management.
Gatekeeping
Someone always controls access. It might be a mayor, a clan elder, or a youth leader. When authority is fragmented or contested, choosing who to engage — and how — becomes critical.
Physical Constraints
Terrain, infrastructure, and weather all shape whether operations can proceed. In some settings, physical constraints also become informal negotiation tools, with roadblocks or “delays” used to signal discontent.
Biosecurity and Cultural Protections
Some spaces are restricted for health, environmental, or spiritual reasons. These barriers are legitimate and often non-negotiable. Violating them can damage trust, even if no one says so directly.
Legal Compliance
Permits and approvals are necessary. But legal permission does not guarantee local acceptance. In contested areas, formal compliance may have limited relevance.
Land Tenure
Land rights are often unclear or disputed. Formal titles may overlap with customary or ancestral claims. Misreading land dynamics is one of the fastest ways to lose access, and one of the hardest to fix.
Together, these seven factors show that access is a multidimensional condition. Security is part of the equation, but it is not the full story.
When Programme and Security Talk Past Each Other
The tension between programme delivery and security oversight is familiar. One side pushes forward. The other urges caution.
When access sits within the security function, this tension deepens. Security becomes the gatekeeper. Programmes see delay and control. Security sees risk and exposure.
The result is a pattern of mutual misunderstanding. Programme teams bypass access guidance. Security teams feel ignored. And no one manages the full picture.
What is missing is a shared understanding of access as a condition to be built, not just a threshold to be cleared. Without that, the risk is not just internal confusion. It is external failure — in delivery, relationships, and reputation.
Access Isn’t a Risk: It’s the Asset
Access is often framed as something to protect. But it is more than that. It is the most important operational asset you have.
Without access, nothing moves. No work is delivered. No commitments are kept. And no presence is maintained.
Crucially, access is not yours to keep. It is held by others: by communities, gatekeepers, or informal actors who decide whether your presence is acceptable.
In contested spaces, access becomes a form of leverage. It may be withheld to demand recognition, extract concessions, or influence decisions. In other cases, it disappears simply because no one maintained the relationship.
If access is treated only as a risk, the focus will always be on defending it. If it is recognised as an asset, the focus shifts to building and sustaining it.
The Problem with “Access and Security” Roles
Combining access with security into a single role seems efficient. But the structure matters.
Most of these hybrid roles are held by security professionals. Their expertise lies in protection, not perception. Their tools are designed to prevent harm, not cultivate legitimacy.
When access is folded into security, it tends to follow the same logic. Movement is controlled. Risk is scored. Clearance becomes the priority. The finer work of access — engagement, listening, reputation management — is often neglected.
The result is predictable. Access becomes a logistical matter. Community dynamics are sidelined. And staff who understand the local context are left out of decisions.
This is not a problem of effort. It is a problem of design. If access is always viewed through the lens of risk, it will rarely be managed as a condition to be created and protected over time.
What’s the Alternative? A Domain of Its Own
Access should not be owned by security. Nor should it be left to chance. It should be managed as a domain in its own right.
That means recognising access as a strategic function, not a procedural hurdle. It requires input from security, but also from programmes, legal teams, engagement staff, and leadership.
In some organisations, this means creating a dedicated access role. In others, it means embedding access responsibilities into strategic operations. Either way, access needs definition, leadership, and cross-functional support.
The goal is not more bureaucracy. It is better clarity. Without it, access remains fragmented. Everyone touches it. No one owns it. And projects pay the price.
Time to Change the Referent
The question for leaders is simple: what are you trying to protect?
If the answer is security, the instinct is to limit movement and exposure. If the answer is access, the instinct is to build the conditions to be there at all.
Switching the referent from security to access changes decisions and priorities. It does not sideline security. It gives it a broader purpose: enabling delivery.
Access is not a side issue. It is the condition that makes all else possible.
So, one question remains. In your organisation, who actually owns it? If you cannot say, you have just found your next operational risk.