The Environmental Impact of the ongoing war in Sudan March 2024

The war in Sudan is not only razing entire cities and destroying infrastructure with widespread casualties, it is negatively impacting the environment, poisoning water resources and threatening to create a toxic legacy for generations to come. The impact of war on ecosystems and natural resources is often overlooked when compared to the social and human harms of armed conflict. However, environmental impact has repercussions that extend beyond the boundaries of national territories and current generations. The war has killed tens of thousands of people, displaced millions and caused widespread environmental damage. Armed conflicts can also damage both the environment and the communities that depend on its natural resources, with direct and indirect environmental impacts and the collapse of institutions leading to environmental risks that can impact on people's health, livelihoods and security. Such consequences can then weaken peacebuilding in the post-conflict period. To monitor and record the character, magnitude and significance of conflict-related environmental impacts, there is an urgent need for Environmental Damage Assessment efforts and environmental management plans to mitigate environmental impacts.

Cities in Sudan, mainly the capital Khartoum, have been bombed, polluted, burned, or otherwise affected by military maneuvers. Massive fires spread as the fighting rages on, while attacks on fuel and industrial facilities have caused chemicals to leach into environment and groundwater.

The environmental consequences of the war are widespread and devastating. The use of explosive ordnance in urban areas, for example, is creating vast quantities of debris and rubble, which can cause air, water, and soil pollution. Damage to light industry and environmentally sensitive infrastructure such as water treatment plants and water sanitation utilities is also creating problems that can take years to remediate.?There is a need to monitor and explore ways to remediate the impacts.”

Informing residents about potential health and safety threats. This is important not only for people who are directly in the affected areas, but also for those who fled and may want to return home. People should understand whether or not it is safe to do so.

It is of critical importance to monitor and document the war’s environmental impacts. These impacts can harm the health and well-being of both humans and wildlife, disrupt ecosystems, and contribute to climate change. It is vital to fund environmental protection and conservation efforts, to ensure that Sudan can continue protecting its environment while defending itself against an illegal war. The Environmental study will help raise awareness of these factors, inform the recovery process with facts on the ground, and help to conserve Sudan’s natural heritage for future generations.

?Crisis overview

On 15 April 2023, clashes erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in multiple areas of Sudan. Multiple ceasefires have created temporary lulls in fighting, but violence continues. The most affected states are , Khartoum, Al Jazirah, Central Darfur, North Kordofan, South Kordofan, West Darfur, and West Kordofan.

5.9 million people had been displaced within Sudan, and more than a 1.4 million ?had fled to other countries. More than 12,000 people have been killed since the fighting broke out in ?last April.

The displacement, access constraints, and destruction of infrastructure resulting from the conflict have affected people’s access to essential items, such as food and water. More than 25 million currently need assistance with basic human needs. The conflict is also affecting the hospital system, with about 80% of hospitals not functioning.

The majority of people ?in Khartoum did not receive tap water. Infrastructure damage from aerial bombardment and explosive ordnance affected water pipes and water treatment plants, making service intermittent. Without safe drinking water, civilians used possibly polluted water from the Nile River without treatment). Fighting has led to access restrictions and disruptions to communication infrastructure, resulting in a lack of up-to-date information

Even before the current conflict, over 17 million people did not have access to basic levels of safe drinking water, and around 24 million (almost half the country’s population) did not have adequate sanitation facilities. Unhygienic practices, such as open defecation, were common in the country, with at least 10.5 million people doing it recurrently.

The current conflict has damaged several water treatments plants and pumping stations across the country. The armed groups in dispute have also attacked, threatened, or held workers at these stations. This, coupled with constant power cuts and fuel shortages, has resulted in intermittent drinking water supply in combat zones, such as Khartoum and North Darfur.

Across Sudan, water was already a scarce resource before the recent crisis. The rapid influx of displaced people since April 2023 has placed additional pressure on host communities and made water even harder to come by. One example is White Nile state, which has had to adjust from providing water and sanitation services to only a small number of people to tens of thousands more since the eruption of conflict.

Because of water infrastructure damage and the rapid increase of displaced people in host communities, people have had to use non-potable water sources, such as river water. This raises their risk of contracting diseases and infections; cases of cholera, measles, and polio are already increasing. In Blue Nile and Khartoum states, cases of waterborne diseases that were under control before the start of the conflict (such as malaria, measles, dengue fever, and acute watery diarrhoea) are on the rise. The almost total disruption of health services in some areas of Sudan aggravate these outbreaks. The crisis in the hospital system is also challenging the identification and monitoring of outbreaks in each state. The number of suspected cholera cases has more than doubled over the past month reaching 5,414 cases, including 170 associated deaths.

Displaced people staying in makeshift shelters have less access to services. This puts them at greater risk of contracting infections during the rainy season, as they are often in open areas with few sanitation facilities. The increased cost of items such as water and soap will also further affect the populations whose livelihoods have been disrupted by the current conflict.

In Sudan, the impact of the conflict and displacements coincide with climate hazards, such as heavy rains, leading to localised flooding in some regions (such as North Darfur and White Nile) and prolonged drought in others. Floods can contaminate water sources, while droughts can make water even scarcer.

Figure (1) Conflict Areas and Migration

Khartoum State

The current displacement rate from the capital, Khartoum, is more than 75 percent of its population. The Capital facilities, infrastructures, and houses in the three areas of Khartoum have been devastated. Millions of residents from the capital were dislocated inside and outside Sudan in neighboring countries creating a humanitarian crisis exerting huge pressure on already meager resources.

There are four drivers of disaster risk, most of which are unfortunately prevalent in Khartoum with varying degrees of severity. The first is unregulated urban expansion, the second is environmental degradation, the third is climate change, and the fourth is poverty, which is wide spread in Sudan as a whole. Khartoum as a city, lacks the minimum level of flexibility to bounce back from disasters. The planning aspect is most notable absentee in the process of rehabilitating the city and providing it with the flexibility necessary to return to normal, coupled with a severe weak infrastructure, including sewage networks, clean water services, electricity, roads and transportation. The environmental situation in Khartoum makes it impossible for the return of its residents who fled after the war, unless it is rehabilitated. All of these reasons make the return of the population of Khartoum in light of the current environmental situation resulting from the impact of this war unattainable in the short or medium term, as there are serious security, planning, structural and social conditions that prevent the return of its population. There is an urgent need for major efforts from different states in Sudan to resettle large numbers of returnees from Khartoum, especially in safe productive states which are in dire need of human resources necessary for development. Increasing the capacity of different states to re-accommodate returnees in their origin regions is likely to alleviate enormous pressures on the humanitarian situation and help to diffuse ethnic tensions in the capital which are further aggravating the ongoing war in Sudan.?

Figure (2) The Impact of War on Khartoum State

Study Terms of Reference

The conflict has seen damage across many regions of the country, with incidents at power plants and facilities, energy infrastructure, including oil storage tankers, oil refineries, drilling platforms and gas facilities and distribution pipelines, mines and industrial sites and agro-processing facilities. The result has been multiple air pollution incidents and potentially serious contamination of ground and surface waters. Water infrastructure, including pumping stations, purification plants and sewage facilities, has also suffered significant damage.

There are also reports of the targeting of farms, where livestock carcasses pose a further public health risk. Hazardous substances are released from explosions in agro-industrial storage facilities, including fertilizer.

In many urban areas, the clean-up of destroyed housing will bring its own challenges, with debris likely to be mixed with hazardous materials. Furthermore, pollution from the extensive use of weapons in populated areas and the large volumes of military waste, including destroyed military vehicles, creates a major clean-up challenge.

The objective of this study is to contribute to the remediation of the damages to and the degradation of the environment of Sudan following the war and reduce future safety and security risks. It has three (3) main results:

(1) Environmental impacts of the war will be assessed and reviewed in coordination with national and local/municipal governments.

(2) Planning tools for emergency action on environmental issues are enhanced

(3) Capacity of professionals / front-line workers on the emergency actions plans increased

After war stop, there can be several environmental and social impacts that may need to be addressed. Some potential impacts include:

1. Environmental degradation: War has lead to the destruction of infrastructure, including water and sewage systems, factories, and power plants. This can result in contamination of soil, water bodies, and air, leading to long-term environmental degradation.

2. Displacement and social disruption: War caused mass displacement of people, disruption of communities, and loss of livelihoods. This can lead to social tensions, overcrowding in refugee camps, lack of basic services, and increased vulnerability, especially for marginalized communities.

To formulate an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) that addresses these impacts, the following steps has to be taken:

1. Impact assessment: Conduct a comprehensive assessment of environmental and social impacts in the post-war context. This should involve identifying potential sources of pollution and understanding the social dynamics and vulnerabilities of affected communities. Sources of Information need to provide a more complete picture of the environmental impacts of the war taken from research and the other parts of the assessment (e.g. remote sensing, GIS/ArcView mapping and analysis), and identify additional impacts that have yet to be determined.

2. Stakeholder engagement: Consult and involve affected communities, NGOs, and relevant government agencies in the formulation of the EMP. This ensures that their perspectives and concerns are adequately considered.

3. Prioritize mitigation measures: Based on the impact assessment, prioritize the mitigation measures that will have the greatest positive impact on the environment and social well-being. This can include measures such as waste management, restoration of ecosystems, and provision of basic services to displaced populations.

4. Monitoring and evaluation: Develop a robust monitoring and evaluation framework to track the implementation and effectiveness of the EMP. Regular monitoring and evaluation help in identifying areas that require adjustment or improvement.

5. Capacity building: Provide training and capacity building programs to local communities and relevant stakeholders to enable them to actively participate and contribute to the implementation of the EMP.

Overall, the EMP should aim to restore and protect the environment, address social challenges, and promote sustainable development in post-war contexts.

Tailored, data-rich maps identifying the intersecting urban and climate risks are vital to understanding where the greatest threats to the cities’ most vulnerable populations, and where to build infrastructure like sewers, clean water systems, and drainage to help manage and sustain the new influx of people fleeing conflict. It is a small but critical step to mitigating widespread suffering across the region in times of crisis.

The impact of toxic substances on the Environment

?During war time, the use of toxic substances ?can have significant environmental and social impacts. Weapons spew toxic gases and particulates into the air and leak heavy metals into soil and water. Weapons and military materiel used during conflicts leave environmental legacies including:

1. Environmental pollution: highly toxic chemicals can contaminate air, water, and soil. Their persistent nature means that they can remain in the environment for years, posing long-term risks to ecosystems and wildlife. This can lead to the destruction of habitats, loss of biodiversity, and disruptions in ecological balance.

2. Health hazards: Exposure to toxic substances can have severe health effects on both humans and animals. These chemicals are known to be carcinogenic and can cause various diseases such as cancer, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments, and immune system suppression. Contamination of food sources, water supplies, and even the air can lead to widespread health issues within affected populations.

3. Social and economic impacts: The pollution caused by toxic substances can have significant social and economic consequences. Communities living in contaminated areas may face displacement, loss of livelihoods, and long-term health issues. The cleanup and remediation efforts for such pollution can also impose financial burdens on governments and hinder post-war reconstruction and development efforts.

4. Transgenerational effects: One concerning aspect of toxic substances is their potential to cause transgenerational effects. Exposure to these chemicals can impact the health of future generations, including developmental abnormalities, cognitive impairments, and reproductive disorders. This creates a long-lasting burden on affected populations and can hinder their prospects for sustainable development.

Overall, the pollution caused by toxic substances during war time has far-reaching implications for the environment, public health, and socioeconomic stability. Implementing measures to prevent the use of such toxic substances and undertaking comprehensive cleanup and remediation efforts are crucial for sustainable development and the well-being of affected communities.

Other Potential Environmental Impact

Education: An estimated 19 million children in Sudan are out of school. Out of this total -- or 1 in every 3 children in the country - some 6.5 million lost access to school due to increased violence and insecurity in their region, with at least 10,400 schools shuttered in conflict-affected areas. Meanwhile, over 5.5 million children who reside in areas less impacted by war are waiting for local authorities to confirm whether classrooms can be reopened. Even before the conflict erupted in April, nearly 7 million children were already out of school in a country grappling with poverty and instability. If the war continues, no child in Sudan will be able to go back to school in the coming months, leaving them exposed to immediate and long-term dangers, including displacement, recruitment into armed groups and sexual violence. Sudan is on the brink of becoming home to the worst education crisis in the world.

Live hoods: The war has caused severe humanitarian catastrophe, destroyed key infrastructure, and constrained trade and production activities. Moreover, it disrupted access to public utilities, financial services, and markets, hence, triggering considerable scarcity of goods and services. Studies to assess the economy wide implications of these disruptions of economic activity, productive resources, and livelihoods reveal that the economy would shrink to nearly half its size before the war, household incomes decline by more than 40 percent in urban and rural areas, and the number of poor people increase by 1.8 million if the war continues until the end of the year.

Lack of water supplies, Damage to infrastructure and water shortages: The destruction of water supply infrastructure is one of the direct consequences of the current conflict. The fighting has partially or totally destroyed several water treatment plants and affected water pumping stations

Unsafe sources of water, Without safe drinking water, people have resorted to using water from unsuitable sources. In the wake of the current conflict, water trucking remains the most common water source for household use across Sudan. The lack of fuel has resulted in humanitarian responders, particularly in Khartoum, distributing treated water pumped directly from the Nile River.

Sanitation: Sanitation is particularly poor in IDP sites, since available facilities are under pressure because of the large influx of IDPs. Open defecation can result in human waste contaminating water sources used for drinking water, such as rivers. This risk increases especially during the rainy season, as floods often carry waste and discharge it into larger bodies of water. This can expose the population to waterborne diseases. Particularly for women, a lack of privacy when practising open defecation also creates the risk of sexual harassment or violence.

Forced displacement: As at 23 August, 75% of IDPs across Sudan were from Khartoum. As at 11 July, another significant group of IDPs had left Darfur region (which includes the states of Central Darfur, East Darfur, North Darfur, South Darfur, and West Darfur).

Disease outbreaks: Nationwide, nearly three million children under the age of five are malnourished, and 700,000 are at risk of severe acute malnutrition and death. In these conditions, some diseases, such as measles, malaria, and acute watery diarrhoea, may have a higher risk of lethality. The conflict in Sudan, having disrupted health and various services, has led the population to turn to unsafe water sources and contaminated food, increasing the contraction risk of several diseases. Since before the current conflict, cases of malaria and dengue fever have been on the rise in Sudan. Sudan has had repeated cholera outbreaks since 2016. While no systematic increase in confirmed cholera cases has been reported, the disruption of services, water shortages, and untreated water consumption have increased the risk of food or water contamination Several cases of Acute watery diarrhoea: since the beginning of the current conflict until the end of July, 300 cases and seven deaths from acute watery diarrhoea have been confirmed in Sudan. The numbers are likely higher, with damaged hospitals and the lack of medical staff and equipment challenging the population’s access to the health system. Acute watery diarrhoea occurs mainly among children. In several states, children simultaneously present acute watery diarrhoea, measles, and malnutrition, complicating the timely identification of conditions. Polio: in December 2022, an outbreak of a poliovirus variant was confirmed in Sudan along the border with Chad. Polio cases have been reported in Al Jazirah, Blue Nile, East Darfur, Red Sea, and West Darfur. Laboratories have been set up to detect the virus, and vaccination campaigns are underway in the country, but the conflict affects these processes. In May, UNICEF reported that the looting and damage of facilities led to the destruction of about one million vaccines. Widespread immunisation campaigns continue in the country despite this damage, but the conflict keeps the transportation of vaccines and maintenance of cold chains at risk.

Impact on health infrastructure/disruption of medical supplie: ?The conflict has significantly affected the Sudanese health system. WHO estimated in late July that more than 65% of hospitals were not functioning in the country. As at 24 August, WHO had verified 51 attacks on healthcare facilities, with ten associated deaths and 24 injuries. These attacks included the destruction of medical equipment and vaccines. As a consequence, disease surveillance, health laboratories, and rapid response teams are considerably limited throughout the country. Besides its effect on care for the wounded in combat or the victims of sexual violence during war, this disruption risks aggravating outbreaks of diseases such as cholera, malaria, dengue fever, and polio. The inability to adequately monitor suspected cases, test them in laboratories, and treat them early can increase mortality and transmission. Violence also constrains the transport of vaccines and medical supplies for their treatment in several parts of the country. Some vaccines have already been destroyed during the current conflict, and others remain inaccessible because of the fighting.

Poverty and livelihood disruptions: Given the current conflict, poverty incidence is likely to rise because of the disruption of livelihoods in conflict zones and the limited capacities of host communities to serve IDPs. The current conflict has also disrupted several local markets and made it more difficult to sustain supply chains. Cereal production is estimated to be 45% lower than in 2022 and 13% below the five-year average, likely increasing prices. Staple grain prices are expected to increase 100–200% above the 2022 average and 200–700% above the five-year average. These price increases come at the same time as the almost total disruption of rural livelihoods in many areas and the emergence of high levels of displaced people with limited access to their livelihoods?

Lack of fuel: In Sudan, water pumping stations are highly dependent on fuel to operate. Fuel costs have increased by 300–400%, limiting the operation of water supply systems and access to water trucks. The conflict has disrupted fuel distribution channels, resulting in fuel shortages that have rendered power stations out of operation and increased the demand for water trucking. This has further increased the price of water. Reduced government capacity to operate because of the conflict means less revenue collected as payment for services, resulting in a further reduction of water and sanitation services to residents.

Fears of rabies and plague: Press reports circulated pictures of decomposed soldiers’ bodies and human remains eaten by dogs and rodents, showing a large proliferation of stray dogs and cats whose owners fled and left them in the streets in Khartoum and Darfur, gathering around these corpses. An eyewitness said: “These are horrific scenes that are difficult to look at. There are bodies eaten by dogs and cats, and only the head remains. There is widespread fear of the emergence of plague, which is transmitted by rats, and rabies, which is transmitted by dogs and cats.

Mental Health: War has a catastrophic effect on the health and well being of nations. Studies have shown that conflict situations cause more mortality and disability than any major disease. War destroys communities and families and often disrupts the development of the social and economic fabric of nations. The effects of war include long-term physical and psychological harm to children and adults, as well as reduction in material and human capital. Death as a result of wars is simply the "tip of the iceberg". Other consequences, besides death, are not well documented. They include endemic poverty, malnutrition, disability, economic/ social decline and psychosocial illness, to mention only a few.

Social Cohesion: This situation is likely to generate and reinforce existing community and inter-ethnic tensions. The war will have a regretful long term impact on peaceful coexistence of different eccentricities in Khartoum and Sudan in General.

Protecting the environment during armed conflicts...a legal approach:

First, there are a number of international agreements and conventions that urge armies not to harm the natural environment even if they are in a state of war. For example, the Rome Statute, which begins with the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, mentions some acts that constitute a war crime, including causing widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, the extent of which is clearly excessive in relation to the overall expected military gains. In order for damage to the environment to be considered a war crime, several conditions must be met, namely: The damage to the natural environment must be severe, widespread, and long-term.

These aforementioned conditions are the same as those stipulated in the First Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Convention in the text of Articles (35) and (55), and they are also the same conditions included in the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Environmental Alteration Techniques for Military or Any Other Hostile Purposes. It was sufficient for environmental damage to meet one of three descriptions, namely: widespread, long-term, or extremely dangerous, in order for it to fall within the scope of the stipulated prohibition, and to consider it a crime harmful to the natural environment. Spread-out refers to damage that creates a serious imbalance in the natural balance. This prevents organisms from growing, surviving and developing, and this damage may extend for decades. As for severity, it means that the damage has reached the point of seriousness, which negatively affects the environment with all its components, and long-term means that the crime inflicted on the environment extends for a period exceeding one season of the year?

The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention was consistent with the spirit of the Hague Conventions of 1907, and complemented them by emphasizing the prohibition or restriction of certain means and methods that can be used in armed conflicts. The First Additional Protocol explicitly stipulates the protection of the environment in the face of weapons used during armed conflicts in two articles: He referred to it, for the first time, in the section on methods and means of combat as follows: “It is prohibited to use methods or means of combat that are intended or may be expected to cause severe, widespread and long-term damage to the natural environment.”

As for the other treatment of the issue of protecting the environment during armed conflicts, it was included in Chapter Three, on “Protection of Civilian Objects,” where the first clause of Article 55 stipulates that during fighting, care must be taken to protect the natural environment from severe, widespread, and long-term damage. This protection includes the prohibition of The use of methods or means of combat which are intended or expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thus be harmful to the health or survival of the population. The second article stipulates the prohibition of deterrence attacks launched against the natural environment.

From the text of the two articles, we find that the first protocol established a standard for prohibiting the use of some weapons, which is causing harm to the environment. That is, it prohibited the use of weapons that cause environmental damage. Referring to the provisions of the Protocol, we find that it stipulates that two combined conditions must be met in environmental damage prohibited under its provisions, which is that it must be widespread and long-lasting. However, the Protocol did not precisely specify the damage that could be described with these descriptions, and the International Law Commission has defined damage within the scope of Their efforts to develop texts for the draft articles on international responsibility for harmful consequences resulting from acts not prohibited by international law, as (damage to persons, property or the environment), without precisely defining the meaning of the word damage, which also leads them to be accused of not establishing practical standards that are committed to It is used by the military commander during an armed conflict. Paragraph (1) of Article (55) of the Protocol stipulates “take into account” and does not specify the meaning of the consideration taken. It seems that taking consideration and care as a measure is less severe than the destruction urgently required by the necessities of war, or It is necessary due to military operations.

It is important to say that stipulating these rules regarding the prohibition and restriction of the use of weapons in the First Protocol requires the warring parties to fully observe them, in order to protect the environment from damage resulting from wars and armed conflicts, which raises the principle of protecting the environment during the outbreak of wars or armed conflicts to the level of International commitment.

Among the other agreements that provided direct protection for the environment during armed conflicts, by legally regulating the use of some means of combat, is the 1976 Convention on the “Prohibition of the Use of Techniques for Changing the Environment for Military Purposes or for Any Other Hostile Purposes.” This agreement aims to prohibit military use or for any purposes. Other hostility to environmental modification techniques that have widespread or permanent effects or are dangerous as a means of causing destruction or damage to any other State Party. It also aims to enhance international peace and security and trust between nations, and this seems clear because the agreement did not contain the phrase (armed conflict) or the word (war), and instead used a broader term (military purposes, or hostile purposes).

In general, there are many humanitarian principles, norms and international agreements that have worked to protect the environment from the effects of hostile operations during armed conflicts, but it is clear that they are insufficient to prevent serious violations of them, especially in light of the tremendous change in modern means and methods of combat that have a significant impact on the environment.