War in Sudan / PDF
Environmental and Public Health Consequences of the War in Sudan, 2023–presentPre-conference analytical brief
Purpose of this briefThis brief provides a neutral environmental and public-health context for the current war in Sudan. It is intended for conference participants who need a shared factual background before discussing war-related pollution, soils, freshwater systems, food systems, displacement, disease risks and long-term recovery. It does not offer a political or legal assessment of the conflict. The accompanying neutral background note explains the basic chronology, main actors and conflict geography; this brief adds the environmental-health layer.
1. Conflict and exposure settingThe current war in Sudan began on 15 April 2023 as an armed confrontation between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. The fighting started in Khartoum and rapidly expanded to Darfur, Kordofan, Gezira, Sennar and other regions. The conflict is not a conventional interstate war, but an internal armed conflict between rival military institutions that had previously shared power within the Sudanese state.For environmental-health analysis, Sudan is a particularly important case because the war has combined several forms of exposure: dense urban warfare in Khartoum, siege and mass violence in Darfur, disruption of major agricultural regions such as Gezira, displacement across arid and semi-arid landscapes, collapse of health services, water and sanitation stress, famine conditions, and damage to industrial, energy and transport infrastructure.
2. Main environmental pathwaysThe environmental consequences of the war should not be reduced to toxic contamination alone. They include a wider set of interacting pathways:• destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, markets, bridges, roads, power systems and water infrastructure;• damage to industrial, oil, energy, agro-processing and storage facilities;• burning, looting and abandonment of urban and rural settlements;• accumulation of solid waste, medical waste, rubble, fuel residues, damaged vehicles and military debris;• interruption of water treatment, sewage management and municipal waste services;• pressure on trees, land and water resources caused by mass displacement and fuel shortages;• disruption of agriculture, markets, livestock systems and food distribution;• explosive remnants of war and unexploded ordnance in urban and rural areas;• institutional collapse, which reduces the ability to monitor, regulate and repair environmental damage.The Conflict and Environment Observatory has summarized the environmental costs of the war as including deforestation, agricultural decline, pollution from damaged industrial and energy infrastructure, de-energisation events, and the deterioration of health and sanitation systems. This framing is useful because it treats environmental harm as both direct physical damage and the collapse of systems that normally protect people from exposure.
3. Urban warfare, infrastructure collapse and pollution risksKhartoum is central to the environmental-health profile of this war. Fighting in the capital region damaged residential areas, hospitals, markets, airports, bridges, government buildings, industrial sites and service infrastructure. The use of explosive weapons in dense urban areas creates several environmental hazards at once: rubble, asbestos and dust exposure, damaged fuel storage, fires, destroyed vehicles, unexploded ordnance, contaminated debris, interrupted waste collection and loss of water and sewage services.The EUAA security assessment for Khartoum notes that explosive weapons with wide-area effects caused large-scale destruction of homes, schools, hospitals and other vital infrastructure, and that civilian infrastructure crucial for survival was attacked, damaged or destroyed. This is important for the conference because Khartoum is not only a site of political and military importance; it is also an urban exposure environment where damaged infrastructure can become a source of disease, contamination and long-term health risk.The war has also affected Sudan’s energy sector. Research on the Khartoum war and oil and energy systems highlights the disruption of energy infrastructure and its broader implications for Sudan and South Sudan. For environmental-health analysis, this matters because energy disruption affects water pumping, refrigeration of medicines, hospital functionality, sewage management, fuel supply, food preservation and industrial safety.
4. Freshwater, sanitation and disease riskFreshwater and sanitation systems are one of the most important public-health pathways in the Sudan war. The destruction or interruption of water infrastructure, fuel supply, electricity, pumping systems, treatment capacity, sewage services and municipal maintenance has increased exposure to unsafe water and poor hygiene.The main pathways include:• reduced access to safe drinking water;• dependence on unsafe or distant water sources;• overcrowding around functioning wells and water points;• breakdown of sewage and waste management;• increased exposure to diarrhoeal disease;• higher risk of cholera and other waterborne outbreaks;• reduced capacity for testing, surveillance and outbreak response.WHO’s 2025 Public Health Situation Analysis for Sudan describes the crisis as a major public-health emergency, with more than half the population requiring assistance in 2025 and major risks linked to the collapse of health services, disease outbreaks, food insecurity, displacement and reduced access to safe water and sanitation. This makes water and sanitation not a secondary issue, but one of the main mechanisms through which the war becomes a public-health crisis.
5. Health-system collapse and medical consequencesThe destruction and paralysis of health services are among the defining consequences of the war. Hospitals and clinics have been damaged, occupied, looted or forced to close. Health workers have been killed, displaced or prevented from working. Medical supply chains, vaccination systems, referral networks, blood banks, cold chains and disease surveillance have all been disrupted.The health consequences include:• untreated trauma injuries;• maternal and neonatal deaths;• interruption of vaccination;• increased risk of measles, cholera, malaria, dengue fever and other outbreaks;• reduced care for diabetes, hypertension, kidney disease, cancer, HIV and tuberculosis;• lack of surgical care and emergency obstetric care;• malnutrition-related disease and mortality;• mental-health trauma;• sexual and reproductive health consequences;• loss of epidemiological data and public-health monitoring.A peer-reviewed public-health review of the Sudan conflict notes compromised access to clean water and hygiene, high incidence of diseases including hepatitis E, dengue fever and Rift Valley fever, and severe pressure on the health system. For conference discussion, the key point is that environmental disruption and health-system collapse reinforce each other: damaged water systems increase disease risk, while damaged health systems reduce the ability to treat and contain that risk.
6. Food systems, agriculture and famineSudan’s war has severely disrupted agriculture, livestock systems, markets, transport, humanitarian access, household income and food distribution. The spread of fighting into agricultural regions such as Gezira is particularly important because these areas are not only battle zones; they are part of Sudan’s food-production and market system.The IPC Famine Review Committee confirmed famine conditions in Zamzam camp in North Darfur in 2024, and later IPC reporting indicated that famine persisted and expanded to other areas. The World Food Programme also reported that famine was confirmed in Zamzam camp, home to more than 400,000 displaced people. These findings are essential for conference participants because famine is not simply a “food shortage.” It is the result of combined violence, displacement, blocked markets, destroyed livelihoods, restricted humanitarian access, disease, malnutrition and institutional collapse.For environmental-health analysis, food insecurity is connected to land and water systems. Farmers may be unable to plant or harvest because of insecurity, displacement, lack of fuel, loss of tools, looting, lack of credit, lack of transport, loss of livestock or market collapse. Even when food exists somewhere in the country, civilians may be unable to access it physically or financially.
7. Displacement and pressure on host environmentsSudan has become one of the world’s largest displacement crises. IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix identifies Sudan as a major global displacement emergency, and UNHCR describes the Sudan situation as the largest displacement and protection crisis. Displacement has affected not only people who flee, but also the environments and public services of host communities.Mass displacement creates environmental-health pressure through:• overcrowded shelters and informal settlements;• pressure on local wells, boreholes and surface-water sources;• increased firewood collection and pressure on vegetation;• inadequate sanitation and waste disposal;• exposure to heat, dust, rain and flooding;• higher risk of communicable disease;• loss of documentation and access to services;• repeated displacement, which prevents stable recovery.This is important because displacement should not be treated only as a humanitarian number. It is also an environmental process: people, livestock, waste, water demand and disease risk are redistributed across landscapes that may already be fragile.
8. Darfur, scorched landscapes and protection risksDarfur is one of the most severely affected regions. The current war overlaps with older patterns of violence, displacement and land conflict from the earlier Darfur war. In the present conflict, reports from West Darfur, North Darfur and other areas have described mass displacement, ethnic targeting, destruction of settlements, attacks on camps, sexual violence and siege conditions.For environmental-health analysis, Darfur is important because violence has directly reshaped settlement patterns, land access, grazing routes, farming systems and humanitarian access. When villages are burned, camps attacked and communities displaced, the result is not only immediate civilian harm. It is also the destruction of local systems of land use, water access, food production, shelter and social care.The original neutral background note on Sudan emphasizes that Darfur, El Fasher, Kordofan, Gezira and the capital region are among the areas most affected by the war, with civilians harmed through direct violence as well as hunger, disease, loss of shelter, collapse of income, lack of medical care, destruction of water systems and interruption of education.
9. Waste, debris and hazardous materialsA major but still under-documented issue is war-related waste and hazardous debris. Sudan’s war has produced large quantities of rubble, damaged vehicles, burnt materials, destroyed medical facilities, abandoned military materials, fuel residues, spoiled medicines, unmanaged hospital waste and municipal waste accumulation. In urban areas, these exposures may persist long after active fighting ends.The most likely risk categories include:• rubble dust and particulate exposure;• asbestos or other hazardous building materials in older structures;• fuel, oil and lubricant residues;• destroyed batteries and electronic waste;• medical waste from damaged or abandoned facilities;• sewage contamination;• animal carcasses and decomposing organic waste;• explosive remnants of war.At present, the evidence base is much stronger for infrastructure destruction, service collapse, displacement and health consequences than for precise measurements of soil or water contamination. Speakers should therefore distinguish between documented damage and plausible but unmeasured contamination.
10. Climate, flooding and compound riskThe Sudan crisis is also shaped by compound risk. War has coincided with economic collapse, climate stress, seasonal rains, flooding, disease outbreaks and food insecurity. IOM’s crisis response planning notes that heavy rains and flooding in 2024 displaced additional populations. This matters because flooding can spread sewage, contaminate water sources, damage shelters, increase mosquito breeding, interrupt transport and worsen conditions for displaced people.The war therefore does not act alone. It amplifies pre-existing environmental vulnerabilities and makes normal climate shocks more dangerous. A flood in a functioning state is a serious event; a flood during war, displacement, hunger and health-system collapse becomes a public-health emergency.
11. Data limitationsThe Sudan case is still developing, and data are incomplete. Access restrictions, insecurity, communications blackouts, institutional collapse, displacement, fear, politicization and underfunding all limit documentation. Many environmental effects are likely to be under-measured, especially soil contamination, industrial releases, groundwater contamination, waste accumulation and long-term disease burdens.Researchers and speakers should distinguish between:• directly documented infrastructure damage;• documented health-system disruption;• documented famine and displacement indicators;• plausible but unmeasured pollution from industrial, military and urban destruction;• acute health impacts;• long-term public-health effects that will only become measurable later;• humanitarian estimates and peer-reviewed findings.The most cautious formulation is that the war has produced severe environmental-health risks through infrastructure destruction, water and sanitation collapse, displacement, food-system disruption, famine, health-system collapse and likely localized contamination. Specific claims about toxic pollutants require site-level evidence.
12. Relevance for conference discussionThe war in Sudan is highly relevant for comparative discussion because it combines several types of war-related environmental-health damage:• urban warfare and infrastructure destruction in Khartoum;• displacement and pressure on fragile host environments;• famine and agricultural-system collapse;• water and sanitation breakdown;• health-system collapse and disease outbreaks;• siege conditions and blocked humanitarian access;• possible industrial, fuel and military contamination;• destruction of rural livelihoods in Darfur, Kordofan and Gezira;• long-term recovery problems caused by institutional collapse.The central analytical lesson is that war-related environmental health damage is not produced only by visible pollution events. It is also produced when the systems that protect people — water, sanitation, health care, markets, agriculture, transport, energy and local governance — are destroyed or made inaccessible.