UN halts food help in Sudan camp, warns thousands could starve
Summary
World Food Programme cites worsening violence in region
WFP move comes two days after MSF suspended work in Zamzam
Zamzam in North Darfur home to about half a million people
Famine in Zamzam was confirmed by global experts in August
UNITED NATIONS/CAIRO, Feb 26 (Reuters) - The United Nations World Food Programme has temporarily stopped distributing food aid in a famine-struck camp for displaced people in Sudan's North Darfur amid escalating violence, warning that thousands of families could starve in the coming weeks.
The move comes two days after medical charity MSF suspended its activities in Zamzam camp, which has been the target of repeated attacks by Sudan's paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) as it seeks to oust the Sudanese army and allied forces.
"Without immediate assistance, thousands of desperate families in Zamzam could starve in the coming weeks," said Laurent Bukera, WFP's east Africa director.
"We must resume the delivery of life-saving aid in and around Zamzam safely, quickly and at scale. For that the fighting must stop, and humanitarian organizations must be granted security guarantees," Bukera said.
War erupted in April 2023 amid a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF ahead of a planned transition to civilian rule, triggering the world's largest displacement and hunger crisis.
Senior U.N. aid official Edem Wosornu told the Security Council on Wednesday that satellite imagery confirmed the use of heavy weaponry in and around Zamzam in recent weeks, and the destruction of the main market facilities within the camp.
"Terrified civilians, including humanitarian workers, were unable to leave the area when the fighting was most intense. Many were killed, including at least two humanitarian workers," she told the 15-member council.
AID ACCESS
Famine was confirmed in August in Zamzam camp by a global committee of food security experts.
Since then WFP said it has only been able to get one aid convoy into Zamzam despite repeated attempts, blaming "poor road conditions during the rainy season, purposeful obstruction by the Rapid Support Forces" and fighting along the route between the RSF and Sudanese army-affiliated forces.
The closure of the Adre border crossing into Darfur from Chad in the first half of 2024 also stopped WFP from stockpiling food in Zamzam to ensure consistent support later in the year, the U.N. agency said.
"Nearly two years of relentless conflict in Sudan have inflicted immense suffering and turned parts of the country into a hellscape," Wosornu told the Security Council. She added that more than 12 million people had been displaced and half the country - 24.6 million people – were experiencing acute hunger.
"We need real implementation of the repeated commitments to facilitate and enable unhindered, unfettered humanitarian access to civilians in need," she said.
In November, Russia - which backs the Sudanese government - vetoed a Security Council draft resolution that called on Sudan's warring parties to stop fighting and ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
9 hours ago
- Reuters
Iran's above-ground enrichment plant at Natanz destroyed, IAEA chief says
UNITED NATIONS, June 13 (Reuters) - The above-ground pilot enrichment plant at Iran's Natanz nuclear site has been destroyed, U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi told the Security Council on Friday. "At present, the Iranian authorities are informing us of attacks on two other facilities, namely the Fordow fuel enrichment plant and at Isfahan," the International Atomic Energy Agency's Grossi told the 15-member council. "At this moment we do not have enough information beyond indicating that military activity has been taken place around these facilities as well."
Rhyl Journal
10 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Pensioners who challenged winter fuel payment decision in court lose case
Peter and Florence Fanning, from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, raised the petition in the Court of Session in Edinburgh following the announcement last July from Chancellor Rachel Reeves of plans to cut the allowance. The couple lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating bills. They brought the legal action with the help of ex-SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, who represented them as senior counsel. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Ms Reeves announced the WFP would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160 million. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In a U-turn earlier this week, the UK Government announced the vast majority of pensioners in England and Wales will again receive the winter fuel payment this winter, and the Scottish Government said it is 'working through the options' in the wake of that decision. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood said: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' She added that 'in the absence of any evidence of past widespread discrimination against elderly persons by the government having been put before the court by the petitioners, the categorisation could not be applied to elderly people as a cohort'. The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood wrote: 'In respect of each of the respondents, the rules as to eligibility for payments of WFP and PAWHP were set out in terms of the legislation implementing the respective respondents' policy decisions. 'In these circumstances, and standing the decision reached above on the public sector equality duty and the issue of consultation, the schemes are in accordance with law. 'They are in pursuit of a legitimate aim.' Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' The Govan Law Centre, which acted for the couple, said the pensioners should be 'commended for their courage in pursuing this litigation'. A spokesperson added: 'While our clients have lost their case, we have no doubt that this has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. 'We hope the Scottish Government will now restore the pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the court could have done would have been to order each government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts. The fact they have already reconsidered vindicates our clients' decision to bring litigation.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We are carefully considering the judgment.'
South Wales Guardian
11 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Pensioners who challenged winter fuel payment decision in court lose case
Peter and Florence Fanning, from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, raised the petition in the Court of Session in Edinburgh following the announcement last July from Chancellor Rachel Reeves of plans to cut the allowance. The couple lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating bills. They brought the legal action with the help of ex-SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, who represented them as senior counsel. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Ms Reeves announced the WFP would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160 million. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In a U-turn earlier this week, the UK Government announced the vast majority of pensioners in England and Wales will again receive the winter fuel payment this winter, and the Scottish Government said it is 'working through the options' in the wake of that decision. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood said: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' She added that 'in the absence of any evidence of past widespread discrimination against elderly persons by the government having been put before the court by the petitioners, the categorisation could not be applied to elderly people as a cohort'. The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood wrote: 'In respect of each of the respondents, the rules as to eligibility for payments of WFP and PAWHP were set out in terms of the legislation implementing the respective respondents' policy decisions. 'In these circumstances, and standing the decision reached above on the public sector equality duty and the issue of consultation, the schemes are in accordance with law. 'They are in pursuit of a legitimate aim.' Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' The Govan Law Centre, which acted for the couple, said the pensioners should be 'commended for their courage in pursuing this litigation'. A spokesperson added: 'While our clients have lost their case, we have no doubt that this has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. 'We hope the Scottish Government will now restore the pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the court could have done would have been to order each government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts. The fact they have already reconsidered vindicates our clients' decision to bring litigation.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We are carefully considering the judgment.'
