Dr Bashair Ahmed, SCMR Research Associate , University of Sussex, and Director of Shabaka.
Three years ago, armed conflict erupted in Sudan between rival military factions, triggering what is now the world’s largest displacement crisis. Over 12 million people remain displaced — nearly a quarter of the population — with famine confirmed in multiple states, genocide, and sexual violence are a grim feature of the conflict. But this anniversary also marks three years of sustained, community-led humanitarian response that, by nearly every measure, has outperformed the formal international system. That story needs to be told.
A System in Freefall
Global humanitarian funding fell 11% in 2024 — the sharpest drop on record. Then in 2025, the US dismantled USAID and cancelled thousands of contracts; the UK cut its aid budget by 39%. For Sudan, this was immediately catastrophic. When US stop-work orders took effect in January 2025, 80% of the 1,460 community-run soup kitchens across Sudan were forced to close, cutting food access for 1.8 million people already facing famine. Sudan has become “a case study” for the human cost of aid cuts.
Where Does Aid Money Actually Go?
The formal humanitarian system is coordinated by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) — a body bringing together UN agencies, major international NGOs, and donors. It sets the frameworks and controls the funding flows. The bulk of money goes to large UN agencies and Western-headquartered NGOs, which subcontract downward, retaining significant fees along the way.
Sudan’s country-based pooled fund — a UN-managed pot of donor money, and the largest of its kind globally at $181 million — directed just 1% directly to Sudanese local organisations. Globally in 2023, only 0.6% of humanitarian funding reached local actors directly. A 2016 commitment — the Grand Bargain — pledged 25% by 2020. Nearly a decade on, it remains unmet. And Sudan is no outlier: less than 1% of humanitarian funding for Ukraine reaches local organisations directly, despite them doing the majority of frontline work.
The Ecosystem Outside the Formal System
What makes Sudan distinctive is the scale and sophistication of what has emerged outside the IASC-led system — with minimal formal support.
Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) — volunteer-run networks coordinating food, medical care, evacuations, and protection — mobilised within 48–72 hours of the conflict’s outbreak and by December 2024 had reached over 11.5 million people. But they are one part of a wider ecosystem: women-led mutual aid networks, long-established civil society organisations invisible to IASC coordination mechanisms, national NGOs brokering access in areas international actors cannot reach, and community radio stations sustaining information flows where there is no internet. What connects them is not a formal structure but shared foundations: deep community embeddedness, accountability to neighbours rather than distant donors, and the nafeer (النفير) tradition — a Sudanese practice of communal solidarity rooted in centuries of collective cooperation. In many areas, this ecosystem is the humanitarian system.
The diaspora is an essential tier of this ecosystem. Sudanese diaspora communities — estimated at between 4.5 and 8 million people worldwide — sent an estimated $1.5 billion in remittances annually before the conflict, rising to perhaps $2.9 billion when informal transfers are included. When the USAID freeze hit, diaspora donations and Ramadan giving enabled approximately 37% of shuttered kitchens to reopen within weeks — faster than any formal mechanism could respond.
In 2025, the ERRs received global recognition — the Chatham House Award, the Right Livelihood Award, the Rafto Prize, and a Nobel Peace Prize nomination — recognition that reflects the collective achievement of an entire ecosystem that the formal system has consistently underfunded.
What Reform Requires
The IASC framework and the compliance systems built around it — registration requirements, audit formats, reporting templates — were designed for large formal institutions. They systematically exclude the volunteer networks, women’s groups, national civil society organisations, and diaspora actors that have proven most effective. The result: those best placed to help are last in line for funding.
Sudan’s ERR’s have developed a community-controlled accountability system achieving disbursement timelines of two to three weeks — faster than any international mechanism — while maintaining rigorous standards. Research on Syria confirms the pattern: local organisations receive lower budgets and fewer overheads than international NGOs from the same funds, even as they bear more risk. The working paper on which this blog is based proposes four structural reforms:
- redirecting funding accountability toward community-defined standards;
- rebuilding intermediary relationships to develop rather than extract capacity;
- recentring coordination around community governance authority; and
- investing in Sudanese-owned knowledge infrastructure.
None of this dismantles international humanitarian action. It permanently restructures it.
The Moment Is Now
The global aid system is contracting. And yet Sudan’s community-led ecosystem has sustained millions through three years of catastrophic conflict. This ecosystem also faces active suppression: responders have been detained; authorities have criminalised independent grassroots action; armed factions have sought to absorb community structures into military control. Funders who benefit from this work carry a moral responsibility to resource its protection. When 70.8% of surveyed Sudanese grassroots initiatives identify peacebuilding as their primary post-war role, they are articulating what the international system has struggled to operationalise for decades. The blueprint is here. The moment is now. What remains is the institutional will to act on it.
This blog is based on a working paper, ‘Community-Led Humanitarian Response in Sudan: Evidence, Criteria, and the Case for Structural Reform’ (2026), published by the Sussex Centre for Migration Research. The full paper is available here.





Italians on the Field, Foreigners under the Law? Sport and the Politics of Citizenship
Dr Giuseppe Scotto, University of the West of Scotland
On March 14th , 2026, the Italian team reached for the first time in its history the semifinal of the World Baseball Classic, before being defeated by Venezuela. A few days earlier, they had surprisingly defeated the USA, finishing first in their pool. These results received widespread coverage, given that baseball is not among the most popular sports in Italy. Both the American and Italian press published several articles on the Italian team, paying particular attention to its composition. Only three of the thirty members on the roster were born in Italy, while twenty-four were born in the US, starting with captain Vinnie Pasquantino, a regular MLB player for the Kansas City Royals, born in Richmond, Virginia, but of Abruzzo origins. To express his fondness for Italian culture, Pasquantino came up with the idea to celebrate each home run with an espresso shot in the dugout.
The 2026 World Baseball Classic is an international professional baseball tournament featuring 20 national baseball teams, with unique eligibility rules. The WBC allows players to represent countries not only on the basis of citizenship or birthplace, but also on “heritage,” such as the citizenship or birthplace of the player’s parents or if “the player presents documentary evidence satisfactory to WBCI that he would be granted citizenship or a passport in due course under the laws of the Federation Team’s country or territory (…), if he were to apply for such citizenship or passport”. In other words, a passport is not required. This explains why many US-born players represent other national teams.
Italy is a country with a long history of emigration. Between 1880 and 1920, more than 4 million Italians immigrated to the United States. A second migration wave followed the end of World War II, lasting roughly until the 1970s, with approximately 426,488 Italians who immigrated to the United States from 1946 to 1970 (Tintori 2013). Today, according to the most recent census, Americans of Italian origin number 17.3 million, making them the fourth largest European ethnic group after Germans, Irish, and English. However, Italian-American organisations like the National Italian American Foundation (NIAF) predict that the community is actually larger, with figures closer to 26 million. Given this, it is not surprising then that baseball is popular among Italian American communities, especially considering that one of the most iconic figures in the sport, Joe DiMaggio, was the son of Italian immigrants.
A few weeks before the WBC, another bat-and-ball game made headlines in Italy’s sport newspapers and websites, as the Italian Cricket Team took part for the first time in the T20 World Cup in India and Sri Lanka, and surprisingly defeated a country with a strong cricketing tradition, such as Nepal.
In this case as well, the team’s composition attracted attention. None of the 15 squad members was born in Italy, and only a few spoke Italian fluently. Several players held Italian passports or qualified through Italian ancestry, often linked to migration to the UK, Australia, and South Africa, or through Italian spouses. The team also included so-called “new” Italians, i.e., Italians whose families originate from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and migrated to Italy for economic reasons. This mix has been highlighted by the Italian media, with the leading newspaper Corriere della Sera noting that the Italy of the past and the future intersect on the cricket pitch.
One reason behind this success is that, on December 7, 2002, the Italian Cricket Federation ratified the decision to recognize equal rights based on birthright for all its athletes, the first Italian sports body to do so. A law passed in February 2016, allowed foreign minors legally resident in Italy “since at least the age of ten” to be registered with sports federations under the same procedures as Italian citizens. These age and residency limits were further relaxed in 2023 with the implementation of part of Legislative Decree 36/2021. Under this reform, foreign minors enrolled in school in Italy for at least one year, can register with sports federations under the same conditions as Italian citizens, even if their residence status is irregular. However, these athletes are not allowed to compete with a National Team until they turn 18 and obtain citizenship (unless they were a minor when their parents obtained citizenship by naturalization).
In recent years, the success of diverse Italian teams in disciplines such as athletics and volleyball, has contributed to the debate on the reform of Italian citizenship law. This law is based on the principle of ius sanguinis and has traditionally made it easier for descendants of Italian migrants living abroad to obtain citizenship than for children born or raised in Italy to foreign parents.
Young people of migrant descent have mobilized to demand recognition and access to citizenship rights in Italy, in particular during the 2017 campaign to reform citizenship laws, and ahead of the June 2025 referendum, which aimed to reduce the residency requirement for naturalisation from ten years to five. The referendum was declared void due to low turnout. Several athletes of foreign origin were often cited as emblematic cases, and social media campaigns highlighted their stories to raise awareness. However, some of these athletes have been the targets of everyday racism and more explicit racist abuse, including the chants “there are no black Italians” in Italian stadiums .
The year 2025 also brought legislative changes restricting the scope of ius sanguinis through Decree-Law No. 36/2025, limiting citizenship transmission to only two generations (except in cases that would result in statelessness), thus tightening access for people born abroad to Italian ancestors. At the time, the NIAF and the Italian American Congressional Delegation (IACD) expressed concern about the impact of these restrictions on Italian-American communities.
Notably, while the Italian baseball team was making headlines, reigniting debate about who can be considered Italian, Italy’s Constitutional Court (the country’s top judiciary body) ruled in favour of the government and its controversial 2025 law. At the time of writing, Italy’s Supreme Court is considering a legal challenge presented by two US families arguing that the law should not be applied retroactively.
Sportico reports that some of the American-born players in the WBC Italy team have acknowledged that they are not yet Italian citizens, and captain Pasquantino would not be eligible of an Italian passport under the revised citizenship law. But is this a real contradiction?
The parallel trajectories of Italy’s baseball and cricket teams suggest that, while sporting bodies are increasingly willing to embrace a plural, transnational understanding of Italianità (Italianness), the Italian state narrows formal pathways to citizenship for both migrant-descended and diasporic Italians. As Gijsbert Oonk argues, the “question: who may represent the country [in sport]? cannot be easily answered. Categories of belonging are blurred, and athletes, sports federations, institutions, states, and audiences constantly negotiate them.” While the World Baseball Classic (WBC) and the Italian Cricket Federation have have relaxed eligibility rules to broaden participation and talent pools, the Italian government has tightened access to citizenship, partly in response to administrative pressures as courts and consulates are overwhelmed with applications. At present, there is little political consensus in favour of liberalising citizenship laws. However, as Italy’s demographic composition evolves and younger generations grow more accustomed to diversity, the time has come for a deeper reflection on how citizenship law should reflect multiple forms of national belonging.
Posted in Migration Comments