When the United Kingdom doubled its aid to Sudan and neighboring countries this year — announcing £231 million (about $306 million) as famine spread and mass atrocities escalated — ministers framed it as proof that Sudan remained a priority. The U.K. had designated Sudan one of only three “humanitarian priority” crises, alongside Ukraine and Gaza, and officials pointed to rapid disbursements and strong relationships with United Nations agencies as signs of renewed leadership.
But a closer look at a series of recent assessments — including a damning review by the U.K.’s independent aid watchdog ICAI, two parliamentary hearings, and new testimonies from Sudanese civil society and U.K. NGOs — suggests a different picture. It’s one of a system struggling to adapt to “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis,” constrained by architecture designed for large, risk-averse intermediaries and undermined by volatile budgets.
The central question the recent commentary raises is stark: Can the U.K.’s aid system — built for large-scale delivery chains and heavy compliance — actually deliver on its localization and gender commitments in a crisis like Sudan?
About the author
Susannah Birkwood
Susannah Birkwood is a Devex contributing reporter focusing on U.K. aid policy and international development. She has reported on foreign aid budgets, peacebuilding, and the politics of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, drawing on more than 16 years of experience across newsrooms and NGO press offices. She has overseen major media campaigns for international NGOs, including WWF, ActionAid, and Plan International, and has advised a wide range of charities and INGOs on media strategy and press outreach.
