‘Erosion of a country’s future’: What has the war cost Sudan?

Lead

Three years into a civil war that began in April 2023, Sudan faces a profound humanitarian and economic crisis that has reshaped daily life and the country’s long-term prospects. According to reporting by Al Jazeera drawing on United Nations Development Programme assessments, more than 40,000 people have been killed and roughly 14 million people—about a quarter of the population—have been forced to flee their homes. Civilian infrastructure has suffered extensive damage, industrial activity in urban centers has largely collapsed, and average incomes have fallen to levels last recorded in 1992.

A joint report by the UNDP and the Institute for Security Studies, cited by Al Jazeera, estimates that even under an optimistic scenario of peace achieved in 2026, Sudan would still lose approximately $18.8 billion in gross domestic product by 2043. Luca Renda, the UNDP’s resident representative in Sudan, described the situation to Al Jazeera as “the systematic erosion of a country’s future,” noting that losses extend beyond immediate economic activity to the foundations of agriculture, industry, services, and state institutions. Separate Al Jazeera coverage has also presented personal perspectives from Sudanese voices emphasizing the need for a ceasefire that guarantees safety and access to basic services, followed by an inclusive political process.

Coverage Comparison

Al Jazeera’s reporting on the conflict has combined data-driven assessments of economic and infrastructural damage with first-person accounts of political history and human-rights abuses. One strand of coverage centers on the UNDP-linked analysis, presenting statistical estimates of GDP losses, power-generation shortfalls, school closures, and disease outbreaks while attributing the collapse to the power struggle between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. The framing remains largely informative, relying on institutional quotes and scenario modeling to illustrate long-term costs.

A second strand, also published by Al Jazeera, adopts a more personal and advocacy-oriented tone. It situates the war against the backdrop of three decades of prior authoritarian rule, including ethnic violence in Darfur and other regions, and recounts the 2019 popular uprising that helped end Omar al-Bashir’s government. This account attributes widespread destruction, looting, systemic sexual violence, and mass atrocities to the RSF, criticizes international actors for promoting narratives that the group could deliver stability, and highlights peaceful civilian resistance that has met with repression, including reports of female protesters being raped and hundreds killed, tortured, or jailed. Both strands agree on the scale of infrastructure damage and human suffering; they differ in emphasis, with one prioritizing macroeconomic projections and the other foregrounding political causation and lived experience.

Because the available material comes from a single outlet’s multiple pieces rather than a broad cross-section of international wire services, independent corroboration of specific casualty and displacement figures remains limited to the sources cited within those reports. No direct contradictions appear between the economic data and the personal testimony on the existence of large-scale destruction, though the personal account assigns clearer responsibility to particular actors and external influences.

Key Claims

• Over 40,000 people have been killed in Sudan’s civil war, according to Al Jazeera citing available tallies three years into the conflict.
• Approximately 14 million people, roughly a quarter of the population, have been forced to flee their homes, as reported by Al Jazeera.
• The war has caused extensive damage to civilian infrastructure, including farmland, irrigation systems, and transport networks, per UNDP estimates relayed by Al Jazeera.
• An estimated $18.8 billion loss in GDP by 2043 is projected even if peace is reached in 2026, according to a UNDP and Institute for Security Studies report cited by Al Jazeera.
• Industrial activity in urban centers has collapsed by about 90 percent, according to the same UNDP-linked assessments.
• Up to 40 percent of power-generation capacity has been lost, as reported via Al Jazeera’s coverage of UNDP findings.
• Key water infrastructure has been destroyed or seized, cutting communities off from clean water and sanitation and contributing to disease outbreaks including cholera, according to Al Jazeera’s summary of the damage.
• Thousands of schools have closed or been damaged, disrupting education for millions of children, per the reporting.
• Average incomes have fallen to levels last seen in 1992, according to the economic analysis cited by Al Jazeera.
• The RSF is described in one Al Jazeera personal account as having a background linked to earlier genocidal violence and as responsible for widespread destruction, looting, systemic sexual violence, and mass atrocities.
• International actors have promoted narratives that the RSF could deliver stability, a claim advanced in the personal Al Jazeera perspective and not independently verified in the accompanying economic reporting.
• Sudanese civilians have conducted peaceful campaigns against RSF plans, facing repression that has included the rape of female protesters and the killing, torture, and jailing of hundreds, according to the same personal account.
• Infrastructure destruction has extended to schools, universities, hospitals, and government buildings, a point of overlap between the economic and personal strands of Al Jazeera coverage.

Perspectives

From the standpoint of international development institutions, the dominant concern is the irreversible loss of productive capacity and human capital. The UNDP analysis, as conveyed by Al Jazeera, frames the war as a simultaneous collapse across multiple sectors: agriculture disrupted by damaged farmland and irrigation, industry reduced by roughly 90 percent in urban areas, power generation cut by up to 40 percent, and basic services undermined by the seizure or destruction of water systems. Disease outbreaks such as cholera are presented as direct consequences of sanitation failure. Even the most favorable peace timeline leaves a multi-decade GDP scar, suggesting that recovery will require far more than the cessation of hostilities. This perspective treats the conflict primarily as a development catastrophe whose costs compound over time.

A contrasting perspective, articulated in personal testimony published by Al Jazeera, places heavier weight on political responsibility and historical continuity. It traces the current war to the unfinished business of the 2019 uprising and a subsequent botched transition, arguing that external interests fragmented civilian forces and that some international actors underestimated or overlooked the RSF’s record. The emphasis falls on the necessity of an immediate ceasefire that secures protection and service access for all civilians, followed by a political process open to the full spectrum of Sudanese actors rather than military or paramilitary dominance. Reports of sexual violence against protesters and mass atrocities are cited to underscore that security guarantees must precede any governance redesign. This view treats economic statistics as symptoms of deeper failures of accountability and inclusion.

Both perspectives converge on the observation that Sudan’s physical and institutional landscape has been fundamentally altered. Schools, hospitals, universities, and government buildings lie damaged or destroyed; looting has been widespread; and millions remain uprooted. Temporal context is important: the war followed thirty years of authoritarian rule marked by ethnic violence in Darfur and elsewhere, a popular revolution in 2019, and an unstable transitional period that collapsed into open fighting between the army and the RSF in mid-April 2023. As the conflict enters its fourth year, the gap between macroeconomic projections of permanent loss and on-the-ground demands for safety and political agency continues to define the stakes for Sudan’s population.

Reporting to date, drawn principally from Al Jazeera’s dual coverage of UNDP data and personal narrative, does not yet resolve questions of precise attribution for every incident of infrastructure destruction or the full extent of external involvement. What remains clear from the available accounts is that the human and economic costs have already locked in a trajectory of diminished opportunity for an entire generation, regardless of when fighting finally stops.