Sudanese Farmers Warn of Failing Harvests as Hunger Rises

Women display vegetables for sale in a residential area in Khartoum, Sudan, March 22, 2022. Picture taken March 22, 2022. (Reuters)
Women display vegetables for sale in a residential area in Khartoum, Sudan, March 22, 2022. Picture taken March 22, 2022. (Reuters)
TT
20

Sudanese Farmers Warn of Failing Harvests as Hunger Rises

Women display vegetables for sale in a residential area in Khartoum, Sudan, March 22, 2022. Picture taken March 22, 2022. (Reuters)
Women display vegetables for sale in a residential area in Khartoum, Sudan, March 22, 2022. Picture taken March 22, 2022. (Reuters)

On the fertile clay plains of Sudan's Gezira Scheme, farmers would have normally started tilling the soil weeks ago before planting out rows of sorghum, or peanuts, sesame and other cash crops.

Instead, in a country stalked by sharply rising hunger, swathes of the 8,800 square km (3,400 square mile) agricultural project lie untouched.

Farmers who spoke to Reuters say the government, which has been cut off from billions of dollars in international financing following a coup in October, failed to buy their wheat under promised terms earlier this year.

That, they say, means they did not have the money to fund the new crop now.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has further complicated the outlook, driving prices for inputs such as fertilizer and fuel to new highs.

That puts current and future seasons in jeopardy, the farmers say, in an unstable country where the humanitarian situation has deteriorated and it is unclear how authorities will afford to finance imports of increasingly pricey food.

The finance ministry did not comment directly on the farmers' statements about wheat purchases, but told Reuters it was making efforts to provide the necessary funding.

The ministry said in a statement on Tuesday it had committed to buying up to 300,000 tons of wheat and 200,000 tons of sorghum, together costing more than $300 million, and was seeking funds from the central bank.

Reuters spoke to more than 20 farmers at the Gezira Scheme, a vast irrigation project just south of the capital Khartoum. All described the situation as desperate, and most said they feared bankruptcy and even prison for not paying back debts.

One, Nazar Abdallah, said he took out loans assuming that the government would buy his wheat at 43,000 Sudanese pounds (about $75.40) per sack, as was agreed last year.

Dozens of those 100 kg sacks of grain, now stored under a leaky roof, should have been sold in March.

If his crop spoils, he fears he will have no way to repay his debt. "If it rains, I'll be sent straight to jail, no question," he said, pointing at the holes in the ceiling.

Similar problems plague Gadaref, the eastern state where much of the country's traditional grain, sorghum, is grown.

"We buy the fertilizer and fuel at high prices and then when we come to sell our harvest we don't find a market. The government is impoverishing us," said a sorghum farmer there, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid involvement in politics.

"The summer season is threatened with collapse. Fifty percent, seventy percent of us might not plant. And that puts the food supply in question," Ahmed Abdelmagid, another Gezira farmer, said.

Roadshows
Farmers' woes predate the coup. They are tied to an economic crisis that began under former leader Omar al-Bashir, subsidy reforms pursued by the transitional government and global cost pressures that started before the war in Ukraine.

Last year, the state-owned Agricultural Bank, which has long supported farmers and bought up their wheat for strategic reserves, failed to provide fertilizer and seeds as prices rose, farmers said.

The Agricultural Bank, as well as Sudan's central bank and agriculture ministry, did not respond to requests for comment.

The cost of fuel for farmers rose more than 6,500% in 2021 from a year earlier, according to a UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report published in March. The price for fertilizer, normally provided under the wheat purchase agreement, rose 800%, causing farmers to cut back on its use.

The report also blamed erratic rains, pest infestations, conflict and irrigation issues for a drop of more than 35% in production this year of Sudan's three key staples - wheat, sorghum, and millet.

This year, the FAO says Sudan faces a rare sorghum deficit.

Just a year ago, the transitional government was out doing roadshows to market Sudan's huge untapped agricultural potential to investors as the economy began to open up following Bashir's overthrow during mass protests in 2019.

Its work was abruptly halted by the coup, which ended a fractious power-sharing arrangement between civilians and the military. Amid political deadlock and anti-military demonstrations, economic activity has stagnated.

Hunger
The UN World Food Program estimates that the number of people facing crisis or emergency levels of hunger, the stages preceding famine, will double this year in Sudan to 18 million, out of a population of 46 million.

And Sudan's food security worries could get worse.

Even with global wheat prices at record levels, Sudan imported 818,000 tons in Jan-March, three times more than the same period in 2021, central bank figures show.

Though the local wheat harvest makes up a fraction of consumption, the government subsidy for wheat farmers forms a necessary, if unsustainable, backbone for agricultural activity, FAO representative Babagana Ahmadu said.

"Without it, the situation will get out of hand," he added.

Abdallah and other farmers in Gezira would typically grow sorghum and key export crops during the upcoming summer season, using the profits they made from the government's wheat purchases.

But Gezira Scheme governor Omar Marzoug said no financing was available, government or private.

Sudan's military leadership has said it is addressing the issue. Farmers criticized a recent purchasing announcement as having prohibitive conditions.

Deprived of cashflow, they are waiting, selling small amounts at the market rate of around 28,000 pounds ($49.12) per sack to make ends meet. Farm machinery lies idle.

The farmer in Gadaref said he and his peers would likely reduce their planting of key exports like sesame by up to 80% if financing wasn't received this month.

"I expect there will be worse problems in the upcoming harvests without a radical change," University of Gadaref agriculture professor Hussein Sulieman said. "And I don't expect a radical change."



The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
TT
20

The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Call it the 911 presidency.
Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors.
Whether it’s leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion.
An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump’s 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors.
The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress’ authority and advance his agenda.
“What’s notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,” said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it.
Growing concerns over actions
The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump’s strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there’s growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address.
“The temptation is clear,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. “What’s remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we’re in a different era now.”
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy.
“It’s the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,” Bacon said of Congress’ power over trade. “And I get the emergency powers, but I think it’s being abused. When you’re trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that’s policy, not emergency action.”
The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority.
“President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions
Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports.
The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces “an unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad “to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”
In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion.
Congress has ceded its power to the presidency
Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals.
Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II.
Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump’s eventual veto.
“Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,” said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. “Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.”
Trump, Yoo said, “has just elevated it to another level.”
Trump's allies support his moves
Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump’s actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy.
“We believe — and we’re right — that we are in an emergency,” Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax.
“You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,” Vance said. “I’m not talking about toys, plastic toys. I’m talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I’m talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.”
Vance continued, “These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president’s emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance.
Similar legislation hasn’t been introduced since Trump’s return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency.
“He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there’s oversight and safeguards,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a “path toward autocracy and suppression.”