Migration governance is largely designed at national and regional levels—but it is cities, particularly secondary cities, that manage the consequences of displacement. In municipalities across the Greater Horn of Africa, local governments are increasingly responding to migratory flows and climate pressures. However, the systems meant to support them are not yet fit for purpose.
The geography of displacement in the Horn of Africa has changed. Secondary cities—smaller but rapidly growing urban centres outside capital regions—such as Koboko and Arua in northern Uganda as well as Jigjiga and Assosa in Ethiopia, are emerging as critical hubs managing large arrivals of displaced populations. In Uganda, which hosts over 1.9 million refugees and asylum seekers, substantial pressure is being placed on small urban districts such as Koboko—hosting more than 6,500 refugees alongside a host population of over 270,000. These areas are increasingly affected by regional displacement dynamics, despite relatively limited infrastructure and fiscal capacity. In Ethiopia, available data indicate that over 446,000 refugees and asylum seekers are hosted in Benishangul-Gumuz and about 360,000 in the Somali region, where cities such as Assosa and Jigjiga serve as key administrative and service hubs.
These are not large metropolitan areas—Jigjiga is home to just over 200,000 residents and Koboko municipality has fewer than 70,000 residents and is part of a wider district of over 270,000 people. Yet they are experiencing disproportionate strain linked to cross-border displacement. This is unfolding in a region hosting more than 21 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) and over 5 million refugees, and where mobility is increasingly urban and accelerated by the combined effects of climate change and conflict.
Despite this shift, governance systems continue to focus on borders, camps, and capital cities, overlooking the growing role of secondary cities where migration is already being managed on a daily basis.
From frameworks to delivery: Closing the implementation gap
A lack of inclusive migration governance in the Horn of Africa is not due to a dearth of policy frameworks. On the contrary, a dense architecture of global, continental, and regional commitments already exists—from the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees to the African Union Migration Policy Framework, IGAD’s regional protocols, and the Kampala Ministerial Declaration. These frameworks increasingly recognise the links between mobility, climate change, and urbanisation, and call for more integrated and localised responses.
The challenge, however, lies in implementation. While commitments are well established, their translation into practice remains uneven, particularly at the city level. The Khartoum Process Thematic Meeting in Kampala in March 2026 underscored persistent gaps in capacity, financing, and coordination. In response, emerging approaches such as area-based development and mobility-sensitive urban planning are beginning to bridge the divide, linking humanitarian and development interventions and strengthening resilience in displacement-affected communities.
Moving forward, the priority is not to design new frameworks, but to better connect existing ones and make them work by translating them into concrete tools, investments, and governance arrangements that reach the cities where pressures are most acute.
Displacement is becoming urban – systems have not kept pace
Across the Horn of Africa, displacement is increasingly unfolding through gradual, stepwise movements—from rural areas to towns and secondary cities before reaching major urban centres. What often begins as climate- or conflict-induced displacement in rural regions ultimately impacts urban areas, as people seek safety, services, and livelihoods in cities.
However, this shift is not only about where people move, but about how cities absorb and manage the pressures this creates on urban systems. Many of these arrivals remain largely invisible within formal systems, as displaced populations are often unregistered and uncounted. As a result, they are excluded from planning processes, jeopardising the provision of needed services and resources. Because funding allocations are frequently tied to official population data that do not capture these additional demands, cities are left serving significantly larger populations than those reflected in their budgets and infrastructure.
The consequences are immediate. Local governments—particularly in secondary cities—face rising demands for land, housing, services, and livelihoods, often without the fiscal capacity, institutional support, or planning tools required to respond effectively. In northern Uganda and similar contexts, local authorities must navigate complex pressures around land access, service provision, and social cohesion while balancing the needs of host communities and displaced populations.
At the same time, rapid and unplanned urbanisation risks reinforcing vulnerability, creating a divide between “surviving” and “thriving” populations. In other words, when cities are unable to move beyond crisis response, displacement becomes embedded in cycles of informality, exclusion, and inequality. Yet policy responses and financing models remain largely oriented toward short-term, camp-based approaches, failing to reflect the increasingly urban, complex, and protracted nature of displacement.
This gap is particularly pronounced for IDPs, who—unlike refugees—are not covered by a dedicated international protection regime and rely primarily on national systems that often face capacity and resource constraints. As a result, urban displacement—whether internal or cross-border—remains insufficiently addressed within existing policy and funding frameworks.
Bridging this gap requires moving beyond fragmented approaches and addressing the intersection of climate, conflict, and mobility through coordinated, development-oriented responses—anchored in the realities secondary cities are already navigating.
The limited inclusion of secondary cities reflects systemic constraints, not intention
Across the region, how cities engage in migration governance is shaped less by policy choices than by system design. Decision-making authority, fiscal resources, and access to international financing remain largely concentrated at the national level. Meanwhile, municipalities—particularly outside capital cities—have limited room to act despite their expanding responsibilities.
This imbalance is becoming more pronounced as urbanisation accelerates. Africa’s urban population already exceeds 700 million people and is projected to reach 1.4 billion by 2050, with much of this growth occurring outside major capitals. Secondary cities are expected to account for over half of urban growth in Sub-Saharan Africa, yet they continue to receive disproportionately low levels of investment and institutional support. At the same time, the continent hosts more than 35 million IDPs, many of whom settle in urban areas that are not fully captured in planning systems.
In practice, secondary cities operate with limited fiscal autonomy, weak revenue bases, and restricted access to international funding, constraining their ability to respond to rising population pressures. Their role is further obscured by data gaps, as population movements into secondary cities often go unrecorded.
Positioned between national frameworks and local realities, secondary cities therefore represent the “missing middle” of migration governance—critical to its success, yet insufficiently embedded in systems of planning, financing, and coordination. Closing this gap requires rethinking how authority, funding, and data are distributed so that governance systems better reflect the actual geography of displacement and urban growth.
Aligning governance with urban realities
A first key lesson is that policy frameworks are not the primary constraint—implementation is. While global, regional, and national frameworks increasingly recognise the role of cities in managing displacement and mobility, their commitments are still unevenly translated in practice. The priority now must be to better connect these frameworks to local realities, ensuring that cities—particularly secondary cities—are systematically integrated into migration, climate, and development strategies.
Second, strengthening multi-level governance is essential. Cities are already managing complex and rapidly evolving dynamics on the ground yet often lack the mandates and coordination mechanisms to respond effectively. Clearer roles and stronger alignment between national and municipal priorities, alongside sustained technical support, are necessary to enable cities to move beyond reactive crisis management toward longer-term planning.
Financing represents a third challenge. There is a persistent mismatch between where displacement pressures are concentrated and where resources are allocated. Secondary cities—despite acting as frontline responders and, in many cases, “climate shock absorbers”—have limited access to predictable and direct financing. Funding is still largely channelled through national systems or large-scale programmes, limiting the ability of municipalities to plan and respond promptly and flexibly to local realities. Addressing this issue will require rethinking financing mechanisms to ensure that cities can directly access and manage resources commensurate with their responsibilities.
Fourth, data and planning are cross-cutting priorities. Reliable and accessible data is not only a technical tool, but a prerequisite for visibility, coordination, and resource mobilisation. Without it, cities cannot plan effectively, target interventions, or demonstrate need. For this reason, strengthening local data systems must be understood as a core governance investment rather than an optional add-on.
Finally, a critical shift is needed from short-term responses toward long-term, inclusive urban systems. Experiences across the Horn of Africa increasingly show that sustainable solutions depend on strengthening municipal systems—land management, service delivery, and local economic development—while ensuring that displaced and host communities are integrated into planning processes. Ultimately, aligning systems with urban realities requires recognising cities not only as sites of impact, but as central actors in shaping more resilient and inclusive migration governance.
Hala Hamedalla is a Project Officer within the Africa–EU Migration Mobility Dialogue (MMD) at ICMPD, where she contributes to regional policy dialogue and cooperation on migration between the Horn of Africa and Europe. She is also a PhD candidate at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), based at Erasmus University Rotterdam, where her research focuses on migration governance in fragile contexts in the Horn of Africa.
Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author alone.