London — Civil society groups need open-ended support that leaves them stronger when international attention inevitably shifts.
As Sudan's devastating war reaches its three-year mark, a third international gathering convenes in Berlin tomorrow. Foreign ministers, UN officials, aid organisations, and Sudanese civil society will all be in the room to discuss the country's future.
But the most important question Berlin must answer is not what can be built for Sudan. It is whether the international community will back what already exists - boldly enough, and soon enough, to make a difference.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The dominant story told in policy circles about Sudan is one of collapse. But the story from the ground - documented by mutual aid networks, frontline responders, and diaspora groups - is one of extraordinary, determined rebuilding: by Sudanese people, under fire, with remarkably little international support.
Investing long-term in this recovery is absolutely critical. And yet the window is closing. Budgets are shrinking. Crises are multiplying. Sudan may not remain a donor priority for long. Berlin may be the last moment when meaningful backing is still politically feasible.
This backing, however, must look different from before. What Sudanese groups need is not time-bound humanitarian management, but sustained, open-ended support that leaves community-led structures stronger when international attention inevitably shifts.
A collective response
Sudanese families have just marked their third consecutive Eid al-Fitr under war. Famine conditions have been confirmed in El Fasher and Kadugli, with risks expected to worsen in 20 additional areas as food stocks run out.
The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) commander has publicly ruled out any ceasefire before an unconditional surrender by the Rapid Support Forces, whose actions in Darfur bear the hallmarks of genocide, UN investigators have found.
When the war began in April 2023, the formal humanitarian system was largely unable to operate. What held communities together were the networks that Sudanese people had already built.
These were not emergency improvisations. They were the expression of a long Sudanese tradition of collective response - Nafeer - adapted to the demands of active war.
The groups driving this effort today are diverse. There are mutual aid initiatives providing food and healthcare in areas where international agencies cannot go; women's organisations running protection networks for survivors of sexual violence; diaspora networks channelling funds to families at a speed and scale that formal systems cannot match.
The only ceasefires that have so far held have, meanwhile, been highly localised, based on local committees, leadership, and institutions negotiating between themselves. Some of these predate the war and are still working with integrity, allowing farmers to cultivate and trade to move.
The most recognised groups are the Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) - decentralised civil society networks that emerged from the neighbourhood resistance committees of the 2018-2019 revolution. They now operate across all 18 Sudanese states, have fed over 900,000 people, maintained hospital supply chains, and evacuated families from active conflict zones.
The ERRs were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2024 and 2025. Yet they receive less than 1% of international humanitarian funding to Sudan.
The lesson is stark. Sudan's recovery infrastructure is already in place. It just needs backing.
Planning for "the day after" Berlin is not a call for more short-term humanitarian aid. It is a call for long-term investment in Sudanese civil society: the volunteer networks running community kitchens, makeshift clinics, and informal schools; the local committees managing displacement and mediating conflict; the diaspora organisations.
As the drum beats of war grow louder - globally and regionally - we must demand a shift in how support is understood: away from short-term relief in the absence of a political solution, and towards building better outcomes and creating pockets of hope and resilience amidst conflict - progress that can build the foundations of peace.
Real commitment
Achieving the shift we are describing won't be easy. By nature of their mandates, international actors engage in peacemaking and humanitarian relief with a focus on immediate needs.
International systems, meanwhile, remain largely configured to engage central governments, even where those governments no longer meaningfully govern - as is the case for nearly half of those living in fragile and conflict-affected states where central authority has collapsed, receded, or is contested.
Whether donors will stand in genuine solidarity with Sudanese communities also remains an open question.
A simple test could apply to every government attending the Berlin conference. If a foreign minister stands at a podium and declares solidarity with Sudanese civilians, does that statement hold across the whole of government?
Does it hold at the visa office, where Sudanese researchers and human rights defenders are denied the right to attend the very conferences where decisions about Sudan are made? Does it hold in the immigration system, where people fleeing a genocide-designated conflict face removal? Does it hold in the budget, where aid cuts land hardest on the flexible, locally led programming?
This is a policy coherence argument. It is not about moral purity - it is about a concrete, testable commitment.
Reasons to be hopeful
Still, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The UK has doubled its Sudan crisis funding to £231 million, and has made prevention of violence against women and girls, and support for women-led organisations, a specific programme commitment.
In the philanthropic space, the Funders for Mutual Aid in Sudan coalition -- coordinated by the Center for Disaster Philanthropy - has committed to placing at least $16 million in direct, flexible grants to vetted mutual aid groups.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Conferences like Berlin, meanwhile, offer a rare opportunity to refocus attention on civilian actors. Around 40 figures representing multiple Sudanese political coalitions and parties have been invited, creating space to re-centre civilian needs and test what a viable civilian process could look like.
The emphasis on civilian inclusion marks a shift away from recurrent efforts to rebuild Sudanese government institutions based on power-sharing. Such efforts often entrench the interests of the warring parties, or result in the formation of a state that does not control either territorial or human security.
As the war enters its fourth year, it is clear it can no longer be seen as a humanitarian emergency alone. It is a test case for how the international community will respond to complex crises in an era of shrinking aid budgets, fracturing multilateralism, and growing competition for attention.
The good news is that the infrastructure for Sudan's recovery is already being built - by the Sudanese people, under fire. The question for the ministers, diplomats and policymakers in Berlin is whether they will rise to meet them.
Bashàïr Ahmed, CEO of Shabaka, a consulting and research organisation focused on diaspora and migrant humanitarian action
Jago Salmon, Principal policy fellow with ODI Global, a non-resident fellow at both the Centre for International Cooperation at NYU and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and a member of the United Nations Surge Advisory Team
