Zekarias Beshah, Senior Researcher, Amani Africa

The major breakthrough of the international conference on Sudan held in Berlin was the adoption of a joint declaration by the civilian forces convened during the conference. On 15 April, marking the third anniversary of the outbreak of the Sudan conflict, the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU), Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States convened the third international Sudan conference in Berlin.

This meeting, which brought together ministers and representatives from 55 countries, alongside donors, regional organisations, United Nations entities, and other partners, as well as 38 international and Sudanese NGOs, follows earlier conferences in Paris (2024) and London (2025).

As with its predecessors, the convening was not without controversy—particularly regarding participation and representation. The exclusion of the warring parties (the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)) drew criticism from both sides. Sudan’s foreign ministry denounced the conference for proceeding without consultation with Khartoum, characterising it as a ‘colonial tutelage approach.’ Meanwhile, the Sudan Founding Alliance (TASIS), a coalition aligned with the RSF, raised concerns over the perceived inclusion of actors linked to the SAF and the Islamic movement, warning that such participation could dilute the civilian voice and hinder peace efforts.

Additionally, the countries that participated in the conference were unable to agree on a joint communique. Despite the joint statement that the members of the Quad negotiated and adopted in September 2025, divisions that resurfaced during the technical negotiations, reportedly over language relating to the preservation of ‘state institutions’, forced the convening to end without a joint communique of the participating states, as in London. Consequently, the conference closed with a co-hosts’ communiqué.

Despite these drawbacks, Berlin registered some positive outcomes for a situation that needs some flicker of progress. In this respect, the outcomes of the conference should be assessed against its stated objectives, rather than against expectations it was not designed to fulfil. Some commentary has downplayed the conference’s significance, criticising its format for failing to deliver a ceasefire or immediate relief for civilians. The conference instead focused on three core objectives: mobilising humanitarian support, elevating global attention to the Sudan crisis, and creating space for civilian and political dialogue. Its success should be evaluated accordingly.

A major outcome of Berlin was the creation, for the first time in three years, of a platform for Sudanese civilian and political actors to convene and agree on a joint statement calling for an end to the war. This process was facilitated by the Quintet. Building on consultations initiated in Addis Ababa and concluded in Berlin, some 46 representatives endorsed a joint call structured around seven key priorities: an immediate ceasefire; protection of civilians and infrastructure; humanitarian access; civilian democratic governance; a Sudanese-owned political process; international support; and justice.

This development is particularly significant given the persistent fragmentation of civilian actors and the limitation, to date, to collectively influence the trajectory of the conflict. Previous efforts by the AU High-Level Panel on Sudan, established in January 2024, facilitated preparatory consultations in July and August 2024 and February 2025 but did not achieve comparable convergence. In this context, the progress made under the Quintet framework in Berlin should be seen as a meaningful step toward a unified civilian platform and lays the groundwork for a Sudanese-led political dialogue.

On the humanitarian front, the Sudan conflict has generated the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. According to OCHA’s February report, an estimated 33.7 million people need assistance, with 28.9 million requiring food security and livelihood support in 2026. Famine conditions have been confirmed in El Fasher and Kadugli, with similar patterns observed in Dilling. As the conflict persists, humanitarian needs continue to rise, yet responses have not kept pace. Instead, significant funding shortfalls have led to reductions in life-saving assistance. The 2026 humanitarian response plan stands at USD 2.6 billion—a decrease of nearly one-third from the previous year—reflecting a constrained funding environment. Only 35 per cent of the 2025 plan was funded, and in 2026, just 16 per cent of the required funding has been secured to date.

Against this backdrop, one of the conference’s tangible outcomes is the mobilisation of financial commitments. International donors pledged €1.5 billion, with more than half (€811 million) contributed by the European Union and its member states, reflecting a significant increase compared to the London conference, where pledges totalled around €950 million. While insufficient to meet overall needs, this represents a substantial and concrete contribution that should not be understated, despite the lack of clarity about how much of the pledged money is additional to the amount pledged during the humanitarian convening held in Washington, D.C.

Third, the conference succeeded in bringing Sudan’s crisis to the forefront of international attention. Despite constituting the world’s most severe humanitarian emergency, Sudan has increasingly been overshadowed by other geopolitical crises, including those in Ukraine, Gaza, and, more recently, Iran. The Berlin conference, at least temporarily, served to re-centre global focus on Sudan.

Overall, the Berlin conference has helped generate momentum for Sudanese civilian and political actors to engage more cohesively and to shape the country’s transition toward civilian-led governance. This is a major development given the persisting deadlock in the SAF-RSF-focused processes. Sustaining this momentum now falls to the Quintet. A key next step will be to engage those actors not represented in Berlin and ensure broader inclusivity. Encouragingly, plans are reportedly underway to convene follow-up meetings in May to incorporate additional stakeholders. The success registered in Berlin with the adoption of a joint statement of civilians presents a unique opportunity to take forward the question of how to pursue proposals towards the constitution of a civilian transitional authority.