From our experience, indeed it has been quite difficult to raise the situation in Sudan to get the attention of donor countries and the international community so they see all the problems, such as malnutrition, the collapse of health facilities and the health system, and the threat of the outbreak of diseases. It's very difficult to get this message out and get the attention needed for funding so that, for example, the humanitarian actors on the ground can deliver the much-needed humanitarian response. As I alluded to in my opening remarks, that's partly because of the security concern. However, in areas that are far away from the front line, the conflict line, and in quite easily and logistically accessible areas—for example, in the White Nile state—we're also not seeing any international actors on the ground. When cross-border operations were possible, before the Government of Sudan decided to close down the border crossing in February, UN agencies had very limited cross-border operations as well.
This may be because of what we have seen on the ground, which is that the UN has, since last year in April, put on Sudan the security level status of “evacuation”. That implies that all UN agencies and possibly their implementing partners are not able to be in Sudan, except in the east part, in Port Sudan. They cannot stay overnight. That also explains why a very limited presence or humanitarian response has been possible on the ground.
Funding, security and perhaps some self-imposed restrictions explain the lack of response.