{"id":360,"date":"2026-04-22T09:16:12","date_gmt":"2026-04-22T08:16:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/?p=360"},"modified":"2026-04-22T15:15:50","modified_gmt":"2026-04-22T14:15:50","slug":"when-communities-lead-lessons-from-sudans-humanitarian-crisis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussex-centre-for-migration-research\/2026\/04\/22\/when-communities-lead-lessons-from-sudans-humanitarian-crisis\/","title":{"rendered":"When Communities Lead: Lessons from Sudan\u2019s Humanitarian Crisis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Dr<\/em> Bashair Ahmed, SCMR Research Associate , University of Sussex, and Director of Shabaka.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three years ago, armed conflict erupted in Sudan between rival military factions, triggering what is now the world\u2019s largest displacement crisis<\/a>. Over 12 million people remain displaced \u2014 nearly a quarter of the population \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A System in Freefall<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Global humanitarian funding fell 11% in 2024<\/a> \u2014 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%<\/a>. 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<\/a>, cutting food access for 1.8 million people already facing famine. Sudan has become \u201ca case study<\/a>\u201d for the human cost of aid cuts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where Does Aid Money Actually Go?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The formal humanitarian system is coordinated by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sudan\u2019s country-based pooled fund \u2014 a UN-managed pot of donor money, and the largest of its kind globally at $181 million<\/a> \u2014 directed just 1% directly to Sudanese local organisations. Globally in 2023, only 0.6% of humanitarian funding reached local actors directly<\/a>. A 2016 commitment \u2014 the Grand Bargain \u2014 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<\/a>, despite them doing the majority of frontline work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ecosystem Outside the Formal System<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What makes Sudan distinctive is the scale and sophistication of what has emerged outside the IASC-led system \u2014 with minimal formal support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) \u2014 volunteer-run networks coordinating food, medical care, evacuations, and protection \u2014 mobilised within 48\u201372 hours of the conflict\u2019s 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 (\u0627\u0644\u0646\u0641\u064a\u0631) tradition \u2014 a Sudanese practice of communal solidarity rooted in centuries of collective cooperation. In many areas, this ecosystem is the humanitarian system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The diaspora is an essential tier of this ecosystem. Sudanese diaspora communities \u2014 estimated at between 4.5 and 8 million people worldwide<\/a> \u2014 sent an estimated $1.5 billion in remittances annually before the conflict<\/a>, 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 \u2014 faster than any formal mechanism could respond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, the ERRs received global recognition \u2014 the Chatham House Award<\/a>, the Right Livelihood Award<\/a>, the Rafto Prize<\/a>, and a Nobel Peace Prize nomination \u2014 recognition that reflects the collective achievement of an entire ecosystem that the formal system has consistently underfunded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Reform Requires<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The IASC framework and the compliance systems built around it \u2014 registration requirements, audit formats, reporting templates \u2014 were designed for large formal institutions. They systematically exclude the volunteer networks, women\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sudan\u2019s ERR\u2019s have developed a community-controlled accountability system achieving disbursement timelines of two to three weeks \u2014 faster than any international mechanism \u2014 while maintaining rigorous standards. Research on Syria<\/a> 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n