Sudan at the Crossroads: A tripartite nexus approach to war, relief and resilience

Professor Mekki El Shibly
Executive Director, Mamoun Behairy Centre, Khartoum

Background: a crisis of intersecting fragilities

 Sudan sits at the crossroads of disaster and hope. Since the full-scale war began in April 2023, the country has fallen into one of the world’s most complex crises: millions displaced, widespread hunger and disease, collapsed institutions, and entrenched violence. Infrastructure is in ruins. Markets are shattered. Social trust is breaking down under the strain of identity- based conflict and governance vacuums.

Sudan faces a multi-layered crisis that defies linear responses. The ongoing war has simultaneously produced massive humanitarian needs (displacement, hunger, health collapse), total institutional breakdown (no functioning central government), persistent violence and localised conflict (Darfur, Kordofan, Northern, Nile, Khartoum States), development reversals (infrastructure loss, market disruption), and erosion of trust and social fabric (ethnic tensions, governance vacuums). In this setting, no single pillar—humanitarian, development, or peace— can operate effectively in isolation. This makes Sudan an archetypal case for the humanitarian- development-peace (HDP) nexus.

In such a context, traditional approaches fall short. Humanitarian aid alone cannot stop the bleeding. Development programs cannot proceed without stability. Peace initiatives risk failure if people remain hungry and displaced. What Sudan needs is what Humanitarian Action for Sudan (HAS), the World Bank and its UN partners are beginning to deliver: Sudan Transition and Recovery Support Trust Fund (STARS TF), an integrated strategy that unites humanitarian relief, development, and peacebuilding, arguably Sudan’s best hope for recovery.

One crisis, many faces

The scale of need is staggering. Over 25 million people require humanitarian assistance. More than 10 million have fled their homes. Health systems are on the brink of collapse. In vast areas of Sudan, violence continues with devastating regularity. And with no functioning national government, formal recovery and reconstruction remain elusive.

Yet amid this chaos, grassroots actors and international institutions are forging new ways forward. One such effort—gaining attention for its innovation—is the emerging partnership between Humanitarian Action for Sudan (HAS), the World Bank, and UN organisations (UNICEF, WFP, and WHO), providing a living example of the HDP nexus in action.

What is the HDP Nexus, and why does it matter?

The HDP Nexus is simple in concept but powerful in application. It brings together three actions that usually operate in silos:

• Humanitarian efforts to save lives and provide immediate
• Development work to rebuild systems, infrastructure, and
• Peacebuilding to prevent conflict and rebuild trust among

In fragile contexts like Sudan, the logic is clear: without peace, development is impossible. Without development, humanitarian needs persist. And without humanitarian relief, neither peace nor development can take root.

A Local–Global Alliance Built for the Nexus

The HAS–World Bank-UN partnership offers a model of how this integration can work in practice. HAS, a Sudanese-led platform, brings community access, local legitimacy, and agility in delivering life-saving aid. The World Bank, in turn, provides the financial muscle and systems expertise needed to scale up interventions and begin rebuilding core services. The UN key operational agencies and members of the World Bank’s Sudan Transition and Recovery Support (STARS) Alliance—are well-positioned to advance the peace component of the Humanitarian–Development–Peace (HDP) Nexus, even though peace is not their traditional core mandate. In Sudan’s current war-affected context, where conflict sensitivity, social cohesion, and local legitimacy are paramount, these agencies can and must contribute to peacebuilding indirectly but intentionally through conflict-sensitive programming, social cohesion through inclusive access to education, health, and food.

Together, the three partners align emergency support with long-term recovery, while embedding peace objectives along the way. The peace pillar must be integrated not as a new mandate, but as a strategic layer within existing programming. Coordination through the World Bank’s STARS Alliance and field-based joint planning with actors like HAS, local CSOs, and peace mediators, such as UN agencies, will amplify this impact.

For example, HAS leads in delivering food aid, cash transfers, emergency health services, and clean water, while using community-based targeting to ensure fairness and trust. The World Bank supports rehabilitation of schools, clinics, roads, and livelihoods, channeled through local partners, with HAS facilitating access. UNICEF can expand education access in mixed-ethnic areas, using schools as neutral spaces that foster inclusion and healing. WHO can support joint health outreach to both host and displaced communities to avoid perceived favouritism. WFP can design food and cash assistance programs that equally reach different tribal or ethnic groups, helping prevent competition or resentment.

Innovative Approaches for a Complex Environment

In practice, this means embracing new ways of working. The HAS–World Bank-UN partnership relies on:

• Area-based programming focuses on specific states, such as Kordofan, Gedaref, Kassala, Blue Nile, and White Nile, where aid, development, and peacebuilding can be tailored to local needs.
• Community-based targeting, led by local organisations and conflict-sensitive committees, to avoid elite capture and promote fairness.
• Blended financing, with donors providing flexible funds to HAS and UN agencies delivering grants through vetted local institutions.
• Joint monitoring systems that track not only humanitarian results, but also development progress and peace outcomes.

But Challenges Remain

As promising as the partnership is, the road is far from smooth. Insecurity can disrupt operations. Fragmented governance—with no central state and multiple power centres—makes coordination difficult. Donor fragmentation means funding streams often come with separate rules, goals, and timelines. Most importantly, peacebuilding remains underfunded, often treated as an afterthought rather than a priority.

To navigate these obstacles, both local and international actors must adapt. HAS, the World Bank, and UN agencies are already collaborating with local authorities, civil society, and traditional leaders to address governance gaps. They are also encouraging donors to support flexible, multi-year funding that aligns with nexus goals.

Why It Matters and Not Just for Sudan?

This local–global collaboration is more than an emergency response. It lays the foundation for future governance systems, built from the ground up. By working through trusted local actors, it avoids the risks of top-down, externally imposed models that often fail in fragile states.

If successful, the HAS–World Bank-UN partnership could become a template for other conflict zones. It shows that even in the absence of a central government, it is possible to restore essential services, rebuild livelihoods, and sow the seeds of peace—if efforts are united under a shared framework.

What needs to happen next?

To enhance this approach and ensure its sustainability, several steps are essential:

• HAS must continue to document and scale up effective local models of conflict-sensitive recovery.
• The World Bank should integrate local partnerships into its operations and invest more in peace dividends, including job creation, services, and social inclusion.
• UN agencies need to coordinate better with Sudanese-led initiatives like
• Donors must shift from fragmented short-term aid to flexible, longer-term funding that supports nexus approaches.
• Civil society in Sudan must be at the heart of design, implementation, and local.

A new way forward

In Sudan’s fractured and fragile landscape, the HDP Nexus is not just a policy term—it’s a lifeline. The partnership between HAS, the World Bank, and UN agencies shows what is possible when urgency meets strategy, and when local knowledge meets global support.

For a country devastated by war and abandoned by governance, this model offers hope, not by treating humanitarian action, peace, and development as separate trajectories, but by weaving them together into a single road toward recovery.