In a joint ministerial statement published by the UK Government, 32 governments and institutions warned that Sudan is facing a serious and rapidly worsening risk of famine. Citing the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, the signatories said the coming months will be decisive and that delays in access or funding could cost lives. The statement is written as an operational appeal rather than a broad political declaration. Its central message is that the parties to the conflict must remove barriers to relief work immediately, while donor governments and financial institutions must expand support fast enough to match the scale of need.
The figures set out in the statement are stark. An estimated 19.5 million people, equivalent to 41% of Sudan’s population, are experiencing high levels of acute food insecurity. Within that total, 5 million people are described as facing emergency levels of food insecurity. The statement also warns that, without immediate action, the number of children suffering severe acute malnutrition could rise beyond the projected 825,000. Areas assessed as food insecure were initially put at 14, but that figure is expected to double if current conditions continue. In plain terms, the warning is that hunger is no longer confined to isolated districts and could spread much more widely.
According to the statement, conflict remains the main cause of the food crisis. The fighting has displaced millions of people, damaged infrastructure and disrupted the systems that keep food moving, including healthcare provision, agricultural production, supply chains and local markets. The signatories said the crisis is being made worse by the systematic obstruction of aid. They also pointed to El Niño-related weather disruption, with reduced rainfall and increased drought affecting more than half of Sudan. That combination of war, access restrictions and drought means fewer people can produce food, fewer goods reach markets and fewer services remain available when households need them most.
The statement places primary responsibility on the parties to the conflict. It urges them to allow and facilitate full, safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access across the country and to protect humanitarian personnel working in extremely difficult conditions. One practical request is for authorisation of aid operations through all crossline and cross-border routes. The signatories specifically refer to air access into Darfur, arguing that this would allow faster deployment of relief operations and make medical evacuation of aid workers possible when required. For agencies working at speed, route access is not a technical detail; it determines whether food, medicines and staff can reach communities before conditions deteriorate further.
The statement also focuses on the administrative barriers that slow delivery even when aid is available. It calls for a sustained humanitarian presence across Sudan, backed by quicker visa processing, faster customs clearance, longer visas and travel permits, and the removal of additional permit requirements, taxes and other bureaucratic obstacles. This matters because relief operations depend on predictable permissions as much as they depend on funding. If staff cannot enter the country, if supplies are held at customs, or if travel approvals expire too quickly, assistance reaches people late or not at all. The statement therefore treats paperwork delays as part of the access problem, not as a separate issue.
A further demand is that the parties refrain from strikes on civilian infrastructure, including agriculture and food systems. The statement links those systems directly to the delivery of essential services for civilians, making clear that damage to farms, storage, transport links and related facilities has an immediate humanitarian effect. The signatories also call for stronger civil-military coordination to improve the safety of aid workers and humanitarian sites. In policy terms, this is a request for clearer arrangements on movement, deconfliction and protection so that agencies can operate with lower risk in contested areas.
Beyond the parties to the conflict, the statement asks the wider international community to increase funding in response to rising needs and to support efforts that direct assistance to the people in greatest need. It also encourages development and financial institutions to adjust existing programmes to the food security emergency rather than continue business as usual. The text highlights two immediate priorities: supporting the winter cropping season and strengthening locally led responses. That is a reminder that famine prevention is not only about emergency food deliveries. It also depends on helping communities plant, produce and distribute food wherever that remains possible, while backing local organisations that can often move more quickly than international actors.
The breadth of the signatory group gives the statement added diplomatic weight. It includes the UK, the United States, Australia, Canada, the European Commission, Switzerland and a wide group of European governments, alongside Cyprus and Hungary. For readers trying to understand what governments are calling for, the position is clear. The statement does not announce a new peace process or set out a new legal framework. Instead, it sets out a focused set of actions that could still reduce famine risk in Sudan: open access routes, protect civilians and aid workers, cut administrative obstruction, avoid further damage to food systems and increase financial support before the crisis deepens again.