Voices from the forum: Koboko’s border-town integration model exists. Sustaining it is the next challenge.

‍

In Koboko, at the borders of Uganda, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, movement is not new. The town hosts an estimated 25,719 refugees and asylum seekers, making up over 25% of the total population. Trade routes, family ties and cross-border livelihoods have connected this municipality for generations. Refugees, returnees, traders, and host communities live alongside each other in a town where mobility is part of how the local economy and society function.

Over time, Koboko has developed a reputation as a place where integration is working. Refugees and host communities share schools, health facilities, markets, and local spaces. Coexistence is not presented as an aspiration, but as something already visible in practice.

This gives Koboko a different starting point from many other places. 

Yet the first Participatory Forum (PF1), held on 9 March 2026 and convened by the South Sudanese Refugee Association (SSURA) and Samuel Hall as part of LLEARN, raised a more pressing question.

Can this established model of integration move beyond coexistence to deliver stronger livelihoods, fairer access, and more durable development?

The forum brought together 56 participants, including municipal officials, refugee leaders, civil society organisations, refugee-led organisations, private sector actors, health professionals, and community representatives from both refugee and host  communities.

Shared systems carry integration, but investment has not kept pace

In Koboko, refugees, returnees, and host communities use the same schools, health centres, markets, and municipal services. This practical sharing of institutions is one reason integration has taken root in the municipality.

Local government actors also pointed to a long-standing culture of shared responsibility. The Town Clerk, Patrick Ogweng, referred to refugees as “our brothers and sisters who are extremely law abiding,” reflecting an approach that sees refugees as part of the municipality rather than outside it.

At the same time, the forum made clear that shared access does not mean equal or sufficient access. As the population has grown, schools have become overcrowded, health facilities overstretched, and markets more competitive. Systems that support mixed communities are operating with limited resources.

Wayi David, Executive Director of Light for Disability Transformation (LIDIT), highlighted how this pressure can be felt most sharply by those already facing barriers: “There is minimal provision of resources in schools to cater for the needs of refugee children living with disabilities.”

Participants also pointed to gaps that extend beyond core services. One refugee participant explained, “Regarding SIM cards, refugees in urban areas usually access them through friends who are nationals because most of them do not have IDs,” showing how documentation barriers continue to limit full access to everyday systems and services.

At household level, these pressures also carry social costs. Denaya Robert, a refugee youth leader, described families living in single-room spaces and dealing with ongoing stress. Community-based responses, including counselling centres run by SSURA, exist, but demand continues to outpace available support.

The wider lesson from Koboko is that reintegration can be built through shared institutions, but it cannot rely on goodwill alone. Where investment lags behind need, the systems that make coexistence possible begin to weaken.

For Koboko, the next challenge is therefore less about creating integration and more about strengthening the institutions that already sustain it.

People are working, but pathways upward remain limited

When schools, health facilities, markets, and support systems are overstretched, livelihoods are affected too. Economic activity may continue, but households face higher costs, less reliable services, and fewer opportunities to turn day-to-day work into longer-term stability.

While, economic participation was widely recognised across the forum with refugees already working  in trade, services, agriculture, and informal sectors; the issue raised repeatedly was ‘progression’.

Batali Kennedy highlighted how access to start-up capital remains limited, as refugees are often excluded from loans due to documentation requirements such as national ID numbers. He also pointed to mismatches in qualifications, language barriers for refugees from French- or Arabic-speaking systems, and business registration processes that many cannot complete.

Women leaders and community representatives described a similar problem among youth. Ititu Grace explained, “Most of these youth, both refugees and host community, have been skilled but they are not putting the skills into practice because they do not have the capital for start-ups. Even when they start these businesses, they are always weak and without booster packages, they are bound to fail.”

Thus, while people participate economically, it is often at a lower level than their skills or ambitions would allow. For reintegration to be sustainable, social cohesion must be matched by stronger and fairer economic opportunity. Koboko’s next phase depends on whether participation in the economy can lead to real progress and stability.

Strengthening Participation in Policies 

The forum also highlighted a more political dimension of reintegration: being present in local structures does not always mean being able to shape outcomes.

As one representative from the Koboko Civil Society Network noted, “refugees are invited into development forums and planning discussions, but participation is uneven.”

The issue raised was therefore less about presence, and more about influence. Where engagement is irregular, unclear, or disconnected from decisions, participation can remain symbolic rather than transformative.

For a border town like Koboko, this matters because sustainable reintegration also depends on political reintegration, on whether people feel heard, informed, and able to raise concerns through credible local pathways.

Dorothy Ogolla from VNG International emphasised, “There is a need to work together with all stakeholders in building clear community pathways through which the community can share their challenges and also receive credible information.”

Koboko shows that coexistence is possible. The next challenge is whether it can deliver sustainable opportunities and long-term stability. 

Read more about LLEARN Participatory forums here