The humanitarian system at a turning point: Lessons from Sudan Sudan (July 2026) [EN/AR]

Please refer to the attached files.

Lessons from Sudan and South Sudan highlight that it’s time to fundamentally reframe what counts to unlock more transformative changes to the humanitarian system

As aid cuts reshape conflict risks in Sudan and South Sudan, new research calls for locally led action, conflict sensitivity and dynamic processes to be at the centre of humanitarian reform.

19 August 2026 – As the global humanitarian system comes under increasing pressure, new research from the Conflict Sensitivity Facility (CSF) in Sudan and the Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF) in South Sudan warns that the way aid is reshaped, reduced or reprioritised can have serious consequences for communities affected by conflict.

The humanitarian system at a turning point: Lessons from Sudan and South Sudan, written by David Deng and Natalia Chan on behalf of the conflict sensitivity facilities, examines what decades of humanitarian intervention – and the current contraction of international assistance – in both countries can teach policymakers about the future of aid.

Withdrawal, downsizing and reprioritisation are not neutral operational decisions. They can disrupt access to assistance and protection, weaken local institutions, reshape power relations and reinforce perceptions of exclusion or abandonment. In conflictaffected settings, these changes can deepen grievances and create further risks for communities. Aid contraction itself should be treated as a conflict sensitivity issue.

Experiences in Sudan and South Sudan also highlight the importance of locally led humanitarian action. When international humanitarian operations collapsed in many parts of Sudan after war broke out in April 2023, local volunteer networks and mutual aid groups stepped in to sustain essential assistance. Yet locally embedded capacities too often remain peripheral to the formal humanitarian system, with inadequate recognition of of local agency or the richness of the landscape of civic action.

Both countries have been the site of major international interventions over many years, during which humanitarian aid has become embedded within the contexts. Honestly acknowledging the politics of humanitarian assistance opens up avenues to consider alternative forms of legitimacy, to confront normative assumptions and engage in debates about solidarity and justice.

At a moment when the humanitarian system is under immense pressure, the current contraction also creates an opportunity for more fundamental change. The authors calls for more dynamic processes which foster brave spaces for frank discussion about the contradictions within the humanitarian system, which draw upon movement-building and peacebuilding practice rather than compliance-oriented reform, and which fundamentally reframe what counts as success based on the perspective of affected communities and frontline responders.

Rather than simply doing less with less, reform should focus on building a system that is more accountable to people affected by crisis and better grounded in the capacities, relationships and forms of solidarity that endure beyond international intervention.