The Challenges To Humanitarian Aid In Sudan – Analysis
By Angelina Jain
Sudan is currently locked in a civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by Abdul Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, both fighting for control over the country. With fighting ongoing since 2023, all of Sudan has turned into a war zone. Humanitarian aid entering the country has become crucial as civilians face atrocities and increasingly worsening living conditions. Humanitarian aid is the provision of basic human necessities, which typically include food, water, shelter, and medical aid aimed at alleviating or preventing human suffering. This article examines the challenges to providing humanitarian aid to Sudan and explores pathways that could help mitigate them.
What are some of the challenges?
Underfunding remains one of the biggest roadblocks, leading to response operations being scaled back or shut down. International aid in Sudan is currently provided by countries and organisations such as the US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the EU, Islamic Relief Worldwide, the Red Cross, and the UN. Despite this, by March 2025, the UNHCR’s regional requirements for Sudan were only 21 per cent fulfilled. Following major cuts in USAID, the UK, France, and Germany are reportedly implementing similar budget cuts. The World Food Programme (WFP) also announced its intention to reduce food rations in Sudan. This can be largely attributed to an increasing number of global crises and a growing scale of emergencies, leading to difficulties in sustaining prolonged humanitarian assistance.
Restricted access is another deterrent to humanitarian aid work. Both parties in Sudan have blocked areas of the country to foreign aid and media. Khartoum, under RSF control, was completely off-limits to foreign journalists; limited access to the region was provided once the SAF took over. Such restrictions lead to information gaps, making it harder for aid organisations to anticipate people’s needs. Aid workers also face bureaucratic limitations and obstructions, such as visa delays or project denials, along with deliveries being blocked by armed groups. Both parties in Sudan have been accused of setting up checkpoints and demanding money from aid vehicles.
Similarly, organising humanitarian corridors is complicated, requiring international cooperation and agreement from warring factions. The inability to ensure this can lead to violent acts, such as the Ardre border crossing bombing, where a bomb was detonated in the humanitarian corridor established between Sudan and Chad. This highlights another problem related to access in conflict zones: excessive violence. The danger to humanitarian aid workers has been increasing, in addition to attacks targeting schools and hospitals in areas of conflict. According to reports, an RSF assault on the Saudi Maternity Hospital in El Fasher killed around 460 patients and their companions. In the same vein, the WHO has verified over 100 attacks on healthcare facilities in Sudan since 2023. The conflict in Sudan no longer differentiates between civilians and combatants, creating dangerous conditions for aid workers.
The war in Sudan also centres around its resources, which include its agricultural land, gold mines, and the Red Sea ports, making it an attractive economic investment. These economic interests act as indirect constraints to international aid since countries are ready to provide arms and ammunition to further the conflict and their own interests. Being major stakeholders themselves, countries are often less likely to seek a balanced and long-lasting resolution. When so many intervening actors come into the picture, it can also be hard for civilians to trust foreign entities. For example, the UAE has been accused of using a hospital in Chad as a cover for supplying weapons. These covert deliveries make it difficult for civilians to put their faith in foreign aid and, consequently, malign genuine aid channels.
What are the ways to circumvent existing challenges?
Underfunding is a major problem for the larger humanitarian sector. The UN made an appeal for US$ 29 billion in June 2025 to tackle the most urgent humanitarian crises. Such prioritisation will likely be the norm until funding shortfalls are addressed. To resolve this, changes could be made to the manner of acquiring funds, allowing for possibilities such as anticipatory funding and transparent systems. Another possible solution that is worth exploring is increased reliance on multinational corporate actors and the inclusion of donations to international aid organisations as part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), with incentives provided in the form of rebates or tax relief.
Additionally, alternative cross-border aid could be used to circumvent limited access. Some innovative methods have been employed in Sudan to reach inaccessible areas, such as the EU using flights for deliveries. Other methods could include equipping people with the means to purchase goods locally through cash assistance or using mobile health units to administer medical aid. Furthermore, cross-border aid could be formalised through resolutions, such as UN Resolution 2165, which was established in Syria despite the Syrian government’s restrictions on humanitarian aid, creating a mechanism for long-term cross-border aid. Adopting similar methods in Sudan would allow a framework to exist that would oversee the provision of aid and keep invested parties in check, thereby making the weaponisation of aid channels harder. However, its application would require an international agreement followed by active enforcement.
To prevent information gaps, international organisations could form partnerships with civilian-led resistance movements and local NGOs. As they are familiar with the terrain and the people, this combined effort could lead to more effective aid distribution. In Sudan, civilian-led resistance movements are providing first-aid supplies and insulin, along with necessities like food and water. They have also been assisting with evacuations, spreading anti-war messaging, and providing emergency care through makeshift clinics. While armed groups are the ones that join negotiations due to their military power, shifting focus to local resistance groups and the people could give aid organisations a different perspective on what the country needs.
Further, coalitions featuring a balanced combination of interests could have a higher likelihood of reaching a resolution. The Good Friday Agreement which led to a joint, power-sharing government in Belfast, Ireland, is an good example of such coalitions. In Sudan, the SAF rejected a ceasefire plan alleging that it was biased towards the RSF, specifically citing the UAE’s involvement. While creating a truly neutral agreement might be unfeasible, heavily invested parties should avoid being involved in a mediatory capacity.
The distribution of aid in Sudan is in jeopardy. To tackle these obstacles, solutions such as collaborations with civil society, formalised agreements for aid, and balanced negotiations must be considered and successfully implemented to provide the Sudanese people with the support they urgently need.
- About the author: Angelina Jain is a Research Intern at IPCS.
- Source: This article was published by IPCS