Beyond Emergency Relief: Rethinking Humanitarian Response in Sudan

This post is the second in a two-part series on Sudan’s overlapping food, water, and energy crises. 

The low levels of food, water, and energy security across Sudan have resulted in both extreme levels of immediate suffering and devastating long-term implications for the country’s eventual rehabilitation. In Part 1, we examined how Sudan’s war has triggered widespread famine, water scarcity, and deforestation. Here, we place the spotlight on what it takes to deliver relief in Sudan today. We also highlight a new research-driven partnership between CGIAR and UNHCR that aims to support both immediate needs and the country’s future recovery. 

Humanitarian organizations have to deal with a number of challenging circumstances when delivering aid in Sudan. The two biggest ones include: 

1. The egregious disparity between the amount of aid needed and the amount being provided. Over the course of the conflict, aid levels have been low, and since the collapse of USAID earlier this year, they have fallen dramatically. The United States was by far Sudan’s largest humanitarian donor, providing 44% of funding for food security, nutrition, health, and WASH initiatives. The Norwegian Refugee Council estimates that $4.16 billion is needed to reach the 20.9 million people in need. As of April 8th, 2025, less than 10% of this has been funded. Moreover, most aid enters through SAF-controlled areas in the east of Sudan and does not reach areas where needs are highest, many of which are in RSF-controlled areas in the west. Aid may also be prioritised for specific beneficiaries (refugee, women, children), bypassing other communities (host communities and IDPs, men), inflaming tensions. 
2. Challenges in effectively localizing aid. Given the need to maximize the impact of every dollar, and with limited access to the worst affected parts of the country, international organizations have intensified efforts to “localize aid”. This basically entails handing over more responsibility to local organizations to manage and direct relief where needed. Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) are the most active demonstration of (unregistered) networks of local actors and institutions collaborating to provide cash transfers, run community kitchens, and hand out food baskets. Increased localization is something most would agree with in principle, but several dynamics impede effective localization. These include imposition of rigid “international standards” of compliance and accountability on national NGOs that, for political reasons or due to the rapidly changing dynamics on the ground, they are unable to meet. These standards limit local organizations’ ability to be flexible and adjust to sudden populations’ movements, changes in priorities, or sudden inflation. The co-optation of relief by the warring parties raises additional concerns, not only for how the aid is being used, but also for the safety of the relief workers on the ground. 

Bridging the gap between humanitarian operations and long-term resilience building 

Even given these constraints, humaintarian organizations can still maximize their current impact. While the crisis continues, conflict intensity varies across the country. In some areas, people are still able to engage in trade, agricultural production, and even small-scale manufacturing. Especially striking is that many small and medium scale enterprises have been set up since the beginning of the conflict, taking advantage of a vacuum in sectors that were previously monopolized by the government and military. 

In the more stable areas of the country, humanitarian organizations should pay attention to long-term resilience building that involves strengthening the private sector. Small and medium scale enterprises that provide goods and services, and create livelihood opportunities for the population, will be essential for the country’s recovery. Organizations should consider how agricultural and irrigation inputs or clean energy provision can feed into and strengthen value chains, rather than weaken or replace them. They should also assess how climatic trends will impact natural resources, and design livelihood interventions accordingly. Managing the potential for interventions to either enhance or disturb peace prospects is another important consideration. 

Assessing and responding to differences in needs for refugees and IDPs 

Humanitarian organizations should also differentiate the needs of displaced communities. Refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) are often clumped together and perceived to suffer from similar circumstances, but there are key differences. For one, refugees in Sudan are at a much higher risk of developing PTSD, as they have to deal with unique challenges of uncertain legal standing, limited access to services, and inability to “blend in” with local populations. However, refugees are more likely than IDPs to receive some form of assistance (usually through organizations such as UNHCR and WFP).  

In general, across refugees and IDP populations, those in camps fare far worse than those outside of camps. Rather than a reflection of the circumstances in camps, this indicates that those individuals and families that are able to eventually leave the camp have a relatively higher socio-economic status. They are more likely to be economically active and have some support from extended family/community members. These differences entail differentiated and targeted interventions by humanitarian responders around health interventions and livelihood assistance. 

CGIAR-UNHCR collaboration on food, water, and energy security 

CGIAR Climate Security is collaborating with the UNHCR Sudan office to support humanitarian workers on the ground with targeted research. UNHCR is operating in areas where refugees, IDPs, returnees, and host communities are located, carrying out interventions that meet their diverse food, water, and energy security needs. CGIAR, through the Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT (ABC) and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is assisting UNHCR to assess agriculture, irrigation, and energy systems in specific settlements to identify opportunities for future sustainable development that: 

1) responds to differentiated vulnerabilities within affected communities to build food, water, and energy security,  

2) incorporates short- and long-term scenario planning for conflict and climate change, and 

3) maximizes the potential for peace building.  

This effort can help reduce the burden on humanitarian organizations and put in place partnerships that contribute to the country’s rehabilitation.  

Looking forward 

Sudan’s overlapping crises will not be resolved through traditional humanitarian approaches alone. Our partnership with UNHCR represents a crucial evolution in how we think about crisis response; one that recognizes the interconnected nature of food, water, and energy security while acknowledging the complexity of operating in conflict zones. In spite of significant challenges, our research-driven approach offers hope that humanitarian interventions can become more effective, sustainable, and ultimately transformative for the communities they serve. 

Author: Radhika Singh, Alliance of Bioversity International & CIAT. Photo Credit: Neil Palmer (CIAT).