From Border Barrier to Border Opportunity

At many African borders, what appears as a simple line on a map is in practice a slow, fragmented, and often frustrating crossing experience. Yet in some places, that reality is being reshaped.

The Busia OSBP on the Kenya-Uganda border brought key lessons for other borders in the Horn of Africa into a sharp focus at a recent learning visit to the border involving officials and stakeholders from both sides of of the Moyale border, including representatives from county and zonal administrations, customs and immigration authorities, security actors, women cross-border traders, and peacebuilding practitioners. The exchange was organized by the Life & Peace Institute (LPI) and IGAD’s Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism (CEWARN) to explore how Busia’s relatively functioning border management system could inform ongoing efforts to strengthen trade facilitation, cross-border governance, and mobility along the Ethiopia–Kenya corridor.

Early mornings in Busia tell you almost everything you need to know about whether a border works. Before the day properly begins, long streams of traders, many of them women, move across the border carrying fresh produce and small goods. The volume is striking, but more important is what it represents: confidence in the system.

According to the One-Stop Border Post (OSBP) Status Report, published by the he African Union Development Agency-NEPAD (AUDA-NEPAD), the Busia OSBP serves as a critical trade hub, facilitating the movement of a massive number of commercial vehicles between the Port of Mombasa and landlocked countries. It is one of the busiest border crossings in Africa, processing over 500 trucks per day. The post plays a particularly pivotal role in the energy sector as a major gateway for petroleum products, which account for nearly 60% of the commodities moved through this location.

Hon. Arthur Odera Papa, Deputy Governor of Busia County in Kenya, describes the flow of traders in those early hours as overwhelming, as “bigger than an army.” It’s an evocative image, but also a useful one. People show up in numbers when systems are predictable, when crossing is possible without excessive delay, and when the outcome, however modest, is worth the effort.

This is where Busia differs most visibly from Moyale. While trade and movement exist on both borders, and the physical infrastructure of the border crossing resemble visible similarities, the rhythm is not the same. In Moyale, movement is still shaped by constraints, among them limited operating hours and layered procedures. As the Governor of Marsabit County in Kenya, H.E. Mohamud Ali somewhat candidly put it, at six in the evenings “we effectively close our border in Moyale”. That contrast matters. A border that closes early is not just limiting movement, it is limiting opportunity.

The relative success of Busia is often attributed to the OSBP model itself, but the infrastructure is only part of the story. What makes the system work is the degree of coordination behind it.

The OSBP brings together multiple agencies: customs, immigration, and security services, from both countries into a shared operational framework. In practice, this means joint inspections, shared spaces, and continuous communication. Problems that would otherwise move slowly through parallel systems are addressed in real time. “We have what we call the border management committees… and… a joint border management committee… to discuss the issues that are happening at the border,” Banyenzaki Yolamu, a Supervisor at the Uganda Revenue Authority stationed at the Busia border noted.

His counterpart on the Kenyan side, Martin Kariuki, shares the sentiment. Officials who work side by side begin to develop common perspectives and working relationships. Over time, this has created something less tangible but equally important: trust. That, in turn, reduces friction for traders and transporters.

Busia’s institutional architecture reinforces this collaboration. Border management committees, both national and joint, meet regularly to identify bottlenecks, resolve disputes, and adapt procedures. These are not ceremonial platforms; they are working mechanisms that keep the system responsive.

For Moyale, this is a critical takeaway. Efficiency does not emerge automatically from infrastructure. It is built through sustained coordination within governments at all levels and communities across borders.

One of the most consequential shifts at Busia has been the recognition that informal trade is not an anomaly; it is a core part of the border economy. “Informal trade happens because it is needed… People use it because they have something to sell or something to buy, and this is the easiest, most convenient, most practical way,” Arthur Odera Papa underscores. He further elaborates on the leadership role authorities should play, saying: “government then must think: how do we address that need? … so that revenue can be earned … security can be enhanced…”

Rather than trying to eliminate informal trade, authorities in Busia have worked to bring it into the system. Simplified trade regimes allow small-scale traders to cross with minimal paperwork, while still providing a degree of formal recognition. Dedicated support desks help traders navigate processes they might otherwise avoid.

This approach reflects a deeper shift in mindset. Informal trade is no longer treated primarily as a compliance issue, but as an economic reality that can be structured.

As both customs officials from Kenya and Uganda highlighted, the focus is not on stopping people from trading, but on making it possible for them to do so in ways that enhance human security, generate revenue, and produce usable data. That shift, from control to facilitation, has had a measurable impact on participation.

For Moyale, where informal routes still dominate in many areas, this lesson is particularly relevant –efforts to formalise trade are unlikely to succeed unless they align with the practical needs of traders.

Another defining feature of Busia’s OSBP is its attention to inclusion, especially of women, youth, and persons with disabilities. Women, in particular, are central to cross-border trade in Busia. Their participation is not incidental – it is supported through structured networks, capacity-enhancing initiatives, and representation in decision-making forums. Women traders’ associations are integrated into border management discussions, ensuring that their concerns and lived experiences inform policy and practice.

The impact of this is visible not only at the border, but at the household level. Cross-border trade provides income, supports education, and sustains small businesses. At the same time, gaps remain, especially in infrastructure, taxation, and protection from harassment.

Yasmin Abdala’s account captured this dual reality: “As a woman with a disability, the OSBP has reduced harassment and made crossing more predictable, but challenges related to accessibility and cost persist.” That tension is important. It shows that progress does not require perfection, but it does require responsiveness.

Women, in particular, are central to cross-border trade in Busia. Their participation is not incidental; it is supported through structured networks, capacity-building initiatives, and representation in decision-making forums. Women traders’ associations are integrated into border management discussions, ensuring that their concerns inform policy and practice.

Evidence from Moyale suggests a similar, and growing, reliance on cross-border trade; especially among women. A recent internal study by LPI found that 15.6% (65 out of 417) of surveyed households identified business as their main source of income. Of these, 61.5% were women, underscoring their prominent role in small-scale trade. More than half of these women reported improved access to cross-border markets in 2025 compared to 2024, while 35% saw no change and 12.5% experienced a decline. While comprehensive data on overall border usage remains limited, LPI’s dialogue findings consistently point to a sharp increase in women’s participation in cross-border trade and related activities.

The people most dependent on border systems are often those with the least margin for inefficiency. Cross-border trade supports household incomes, education, and basic needs; yet persistent barriers such as infrastructure gaps, high transaction costs, and exposure to harassment continue to shape their experience. For Moyale and other similar borders, embedding inclusion into the design and operation of the OSBP is not just a social imperative. It is central to making the system work for all the people who rely on it most.

Security is often cited as a reason for restricting movement at borders, particularly in more fragile contexts. Busia offers a different perspective: security can be strengthened through cooperation rather than closure. At the Busia OSBP, security agencies from both countries work closely together, sharing information and coordinating responses. This reduces duplication and improves effectiveness, while helping to minimise disruptions to every-day cross-border movement.

Martin Kariuki notes they have no illusions of making all trade at the border formal or regular. But the result of their efforts so far has created a more stable environment for trade and investment. When traders and transporters feel secure, they are more likely to use formal channels. Over time, this contributes to both economic growth and improved oversight. Moyale operates in a more complex and unique security environment. But the Busia experience suggests that tighter coordination, rather than tighter restriction, may offer a more sustainable path forward.

Busia’s evolution is not stopping at trade facilitation at the crossing only. There is a deliberate effort to position the border as a catalyst for broader economic development.

Investments in aggregation centres, industrial parks, and export processing zones are designed to link cross-border trade with local production. The aim is not just to move goods more efficiently, but to create value within the border region itself, laying the foundations for lasting peace among cross-border communities. This shift reflects a broader understanding of what borders can be. They are not just points of entry and exit – they are potential nodes for growth.

For Moyale, this is a significant opportunity. Its location, connecting Ethiopia to Kenya and beyond, positions it as a strategic gateway. But realising this potential will require moving beyond a narrow focus on clearance and control, toward a more integrated development approach.

The progress observed in Busia has not happened in isolation. National governments, regional actors such as Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the East African Community (EAC), and institutions like the Life & Peace Institute (LPI) and development partners like Sida and the EU, have played important roles in supporting the development of policy frameworks, like the Informal Cross-Border Trade and Cross-Border Security and Governance (ICBT-CBSG), or supporting dialogue, capacity enhancement, and cross-border cooperation. Their collaboration has helped bridge the gap between policy frameworks and on-the-ground implementation, an area where many initiatives struggle.

What ultimately distinguishes Busia is not just what it has built, but how it understands the border itself.

There is a growing recognition that trade, mobility, and peace are closely linked. As the Deputy Governor of Busia, Kenya, noted: there is “a clear relationship between peace and good commerce.” The more predictable and inclusive the system becomes, the more it reinforces stability.

In Busia, this is visible in everyday life: in the steady flow of traders, in the interactions between officials, and in the gradual expansion of cooperation beyond trade into areas like public health. Moyale is not starting from zero. There have been clear improvements in recent years, and the political will for further progress is evident. But the gap between potential and practice remains.

The field visit to Busia in March 2026, was not just an exercise in benchmarking, it was a reminder of what is possible. The contrast between the two borders is not about capacity alone – it is about choices. Busia shows what happens when systems are designed around how people actually live and trade. Moyale’s next phase will depend on how far it can move in that direction.

The lesson is straightforward, even if the implementation is not: when processes are efficient, inclusive, and coordinated, people use them. And when people use them, borders begin to transform. Not into barriers, but into connecting bridges.