No Consolation for Environmentalists
By: Dr. Abdul Azim Mirghani
• Since Sudan’s independence in 1956, the environment has remained a marginal issue, mentioned in the margins and dismissed in decision-making processes, without any political entity seriously embracing it. It seems to be a burden rather than a right, or a luxury rather than a necessity.
• Because the constitution reflects the state’s orientations and commitments, the absence of the environment from its provisions means its marginalization in actual policies.
• In this article, we examine the position of the environment in successive Sudanese constitutions to understand: Has it been viewed as a right to be protected or a resource to be exploited? Is it time for it to become a constitutional priority, not just slogans?
• Sudan’s first post-independence constitution did not include any clear references to the state’s responsibility towards the environment or natural resources. The focus at the time was on building the nation-state, consolidating sovereignty, and delineating powers, while the environmental dimension was completely absent, despite it being one of the pillars of the country’s traditional economy, based on agriculture, forests, water, soil, and pastoralism.
• The constitutions that followed the 1956 Constitution were characterized by a formal presence of the environment and a slow increase in interest in it.
• The 1973 Constitution did not include explicit provisions addressing environmental issues, but rather contained vague references within the context of general development planning, without translating them into clear commitments or actual resource protection.
• The 1998 Constitution referred to “environmental protection” as one of the state’s responsibilities, but it offered little more than a general formulation, with no clear implementation mechanisms or recognition of citizens’ environmental rights. It remained more of a declaration of intent than a binding constitutional pledge. Regarding forests and lands, the constitution included an article relating solely to the division of wealth and power.
The 2005 Interim Constitution and the Naivasha Agreement marked the first political turning point in which natural resources were included on the negotiating agenda. However, this was not motivated by environmental considerations, but rather by power and wealth sharing. The environment appeared as a prize to be distributed within a quota system, rather than as an issue of rights or environmental justice.
• Chapter Eight of the Interim Constitution included articles on the environment, recognizing the right of regions to enjoy their resources. However, these provisions lacked a balance between exploitation and sustainability, and were predominantly administrative rather than environmental.
• In the Juba Peace Agreement (2020), the environment appeared for the first time as a cause of conflict, acknowledging that mismanagement of resources was at the root of the war, particularly in Darfur and Blue Nile.
• The agreement referred to “environmental justice,” the state’s commitment to rehabilitating environmentally affected areas, and enacting legislation that protects resources and respects the rights of future generations.
• But all of this remained ink on paper, without translation into actual policies or effective institutions. Institutionalization was absent, and follow-up was lacking.
• Despite a gradual transition from insignificant absence between 1956 and 1973, to symbolic references between 1973 and 1998, then the inclusion of the environment as a tool for wealth sharing in 2005, and the recognition of its role in the conflict in 2020, this process has not translated into real reforms.
• Despite constitutional promises, the environment in Sudan suffers from major problems such as desertification, deforestation, especially in conflict areas, and water and soil pollution.
• The crisis is exacerbated by decisions that permit mining and intensive agriculture without adequate protection.
• In addition, climate change is causing droughts and floods that threaten people’s lives and resources, making environmental protection an urgent matter that cannot be postponed.
• The environment in Sudan remains an issue without political backing or a sovereign body to care for it. The Ministry of Environment, if it exists, remains marginal, its powers conflicting with those of the Ministries of Agriculture and Energy, and it is often used as a front to justify decisions that harm the environment.
• In a country whose constitutions change without changing its approach to the environment, environmental reform cannot be achieved unless conscience becomes part of the constitution, and unless forests, water, and soil are understood as inalienable rights, not resources for plunder.
• It is hoped that the Government of Hope and its Prime Minister, Dr. Kamil Idris, will turn the environmental visions he pledged in “Sudan 2025” into action. The environment can no longer wait, and politics today can either save it or contribute to its demise.
• Environmentalists call out incessantly, recalling the environment, forests, water, and soil, as if they are screaming into a void where no one is listening.
• There is no consolation for environmentalists if policies continue to be ignored, resolutions are destroyed, and constitutions are devoid of recognition.
• There is no reform without conscience. But there is no despair. Environmentalists must cling to hope. Will the government of hope listen to a voice that has not faded, even if it has been let down?
My hopes for a successful outcome; and my regards.