Authors:
Robert Macdonald
Corporate Author:
Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform
Published:
2025

This brief summarises key considerations regarding cross-border dynamics between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania in the context of viral haemorrhagic fever (VHF) outbreaks in Tanzania and the Republic of Uganda.

On 13 January 2025, the World Health Organization reported a suspected outbreak of Marburg virus disease (MVD) in Kagera Region of north-west Tanzania.1 On 20 January 2025, the government of Tanzania officially declared an outbreak.2 As of 26 February 2025, there have been 10 deaths from two confirmed and eight probable cases in Kagera’s Biharamulo and Muleba Districts. This is the second MVD outbreak in Kagera Region. In 2023, there were eight confirmed cases and one probable case, with six deaths, in Bukoba District.3,4 The origin of these outbreaks is yet to be confirmed.

On 30 January 2025, the government of Uganda declared a Sudan virus disease (SVD) outbreak in Kampala, the capital city. SVD is one of six known viruses within the genus Ebolavirus and one of four that capable of causing Ebola virus disease (EVD) in humans and other primates; it is the sole member of the species Sudan Ebolavirus. As of 5 March 2025, 14 cases have been confirmed, with four deaths.5 This is Uganda’s sixth Sudan virus disease outbreak. The previous outbreak, in 2022, resulted in 164 cases and 55 deaths.6

MVD and SVD are VHFs. Both can spread between humans through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or via contaminated surfaces and materials.7,8 The potential for VHFs to spread into neighbouring countries makes understanding the dynamics at the Burundi-Tanzania border crucial.

This brief is based on a rapid review of existing published and grey literature, programmatic documents, previous ethnographic research in Tanzania and informal discussions with in-country colleagues.

Key considerations

  • The major trade routes between Uganda and Burundi cross Kagera Region in Tanzania. Most trucks cross into Burundi from Tanzania at the One Stop Border Post at Kobero, Burundi.
  • The Burundi-Tanzania border is porous; people regularly cross it informally, especially those who live in border areas. Common reasons for crossing the border include market visits, seasonal migration of agricultural labour and small- and medium-sized trading operations. Regular border crossings are critical to income generation and food security in the Burundi-Tanzania borderlands. There are strong familial and social ties that span the border, facilitated by cultural and linguistic similarities.
  • Women’s groups that have been established close to the border will sometimes have a mixture of Burundian and Tanzanian members. The groups include savings and credit cooperatives.
  • The governments of Tanzania and Burundi are currently working to repatriate the Burundian refugees who remain in Tanzania. Since the 1970s, over a million people from Burundi have escaped violence and insecurity by becoming refugees in Tanzania, and over 140,000 Burundian refugees remain in Tanzania.
  • Cultural practices that are common on both sides of the border carry specific risks regarding VHF transmission. These practices include greetings and sharing food and drinks. Funeral practices in both countries can carry specific risks of VHF transmission.
  • Medical conditions that are endemic in areas near the Burundi-Tanzania border have similar symptoms to the initial stages of VHFs, something that can delay the seeking of treatment. The endemic conditions include malaria, typhoid fever, pneumonia and diarrhoea.
  • Some people in both Burundi and the Kagera Region in Tanzania consult indigenous healers and use herbal medicines when ill.
  • Problems relating to affordability and access to medications in Tanzania sometimes result in people crossing to Burundi for healthcare reasons.
  • Risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) activities and community awareness of VHFs can be limited outside of the districts directly affected by MVD outbreaks.
  • Elections create a range of additional risks of VHF transmission. Both Burundi and Tanzania are scheduled to hold elections in 2025.

Geographical context

The Burundi-Tanzania border runs from where it meets the Republic of Rwanda in the north to where it meets the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in the south (see Figure 1). The border is 589 km long, of which 27 km extend into Lake Tanganyika in the south. The border is sinuous, with large sections following rivers. The direct distance between the two meeting points is closer to 240 km. The border is not heavily demarcated, and it can be difficult to visually ascertain its precise location, particularly in rural areas.

Figure 1. Map of Burundi-Tanzania border

Source: Created by Hugh Lamarque and author using data from UNHCR Global Administrative Divisions (Admin1), Humanitarian Data Exchange (HDX), UN OCHA. CC BY 4.0.

The border connects Burundi with two Tanzanian regions: Kagera in the north and Kigoma in the south. Ngara District is the only one of Kagera’s eight districts that borders Burundi, where it meets Muyinga and Cankuzo Provinces. Biharamulo District in Tanzania is the district with confirmed MVD cases that is closest to Burundi. South-west Biharamulo is less than 25 km from Cankuzo Province in Burundi. The epicentre of the 2025 MVD outbreak is Ruziba Ward, in the north of Biharamulo District, about 100 km from the border by road.

The government of Burundi, with support from UNICEF, has identified three points of entry (POEs) on the border with Kagera Region in Tanzania where the risk of cross-border VHF transmission is high. The first is at the One Stop Border Post at Kobero (Giteranyi and Muyinga Health Districts, Muyinga Province, Burundi); Kobero is also known as Kabanga, the name of the adjacent Tanzanian town. The second is Gahumo POE (Murore Health District, Cankuzo Province, Burundi), near Murusagamba in Ngara District, Tanzania. The third is Rumandari POE (Giteranyi Health District, Muyinga Province, Burundi), near Mugoma, in Ngara District, Tanzania.

Burundi is a low-income country with surging food prices.9 In 2024, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) classified food security in eastern Burundi as in ‘crisis’.10 Whilst Tanzania became a lower middle-income country in 2020, Kagera Region remains one of its poorest regions. Although the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Kagera Region is about half the Tanzanian national average,11 it is almost three times larger than Burundi’s GDP per capita.12

Transport corridors

The One Stop Border Post at Kobero, Burundi, is crucial in connecting Burundi with Uganda. The road passing through Kobero splits into two branches in Kagera Region, Tanzania. One road continues into Isingiro District of Uganda’s Western Region at Kitagati, Uganda (300 km from Kobero). The second road crosses into Kyotera District of Uganda’s Central Region at Mutukula, Uganda (273 km from Kobero), from where it continues to Kampala, the capital of Uganda. There are few crossing points on the Tanzania-Uganda border due to the Kagera River forming a natural barrier.13 Relatively little traffic from Uganda passes through Gahumo or Rumandari in Burundi, as these are not One Stop Border Posts. Kobero is, therefore, the most important POE to consider in relation to VHF transmission from Uganda.

Kobero is also one of the main crossing points for trade between Burundi and Tanzania. According to 2023 figures, Burundi imported goods worth USD 70,667,198 from Uganda and USD 172,326,145 from Tanzania.14

On average, 100 trucks enter Burundi at Kobero each day.15(p. 24) Since the declaration of the MVD outbreak in January 2025, health exit screening has been conducted for vehicles leaving Tanzania at the Kobero/Kabanga and Gahumo/Murusagamba border posts. Figures from the Tanzanian Ministry of Health suggest the average number of daily screenings to be around 150 at Kabanga and 20 to 30 at Murusagamba.16 At the time of writing, no MVD cases had been identified at the border.

Legal context of border crossings

East African Community membership allows Burundians and Tanzanians to cross the border for up to three months without requiring a visa, provided their passports are stamped at the border. They can engage in trade in either country but cannot start businesses. The East African Community membership also facilitates proximate transboundary movement through their Ujirani Mwema (Good Neighbourhood) policy, which allows people from border provinces to cross freely provided migration services are informed. East African Community ‘Rules of Origin’ allow goods that originate in member states to be exported duty free provided a certificate of origin is submitted.17 However, many goods require specific licences, permits or certificates to cross the border. The bureaucracy at the Burundi-Tanzania border can be complex, with 15 agencies involved in regulating or facilitating cross-border trade on the Tanzanian side alone.18 Burundi and Tanzania have been working in collaboration with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the UN Development Programme and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) to strengthen the border and facilitate formal trade. The work has included strengthening the capacity of border officials in both countries and providing better information technology equipment.19,20

Unofficial border crossing points

It is extremely common for people to cross the porous border between Burundi and Tanzania at unofficial crossing points. There are many places where the border can be crossed easily on foot or bicycle, and a small number of places have a particularly high volume of crossings.

The IOM tracked the cross-border flow at 11 unofficial border crossing points during March 2021: the monthly total of cross-border movements in both directions was 53,432, excluding short market visits.21 Five of the flow monitoring points were on the border between Burundi and Kagera Region, Tanzania, and they recorded over half of the percentage of total movements: Kabogo (16.5%), Cigazure (13.3%), Kwa Rutuku (9.3%), Mbundi (9.1%) and Rusumo (5.3%). The IOM reported that 91.3% of movements were by Burundian nationals and 8.7% by Tanzanian nationals. About three-quarters (76.2%) of cross-border trips lasted less than a week.

Although the Kagera River makes crossing difficult in many places, the border between Tanzania and Uganda is also porous. There are dozens of small towns and villages on either side and movement between them is lightly monitored in comparison to crossings at official POEs.13 The informal border crossings away from official POEs are crucial to consider when evaluating the potential for cross-border VHF transmission.

Common reasons for border crossings

Small- and medium-scale trade

At the local level, economic activity is highly integrated across the Burundi-Tanzania border, and small- and medium-scale cross-border trade are critical to income generation and food security in the borderlands. It is usual for both Burundian Francs and Tanzanian Shillings to be accepted in areas close to the border. Short trips for selling agricultural produce and buying food at markets or shops near the border are particularly frequent. Market trips usually involve informal border crossings and tend to be concluded within a day. Other types of small- and medium-scale cross-border trade are also common, with trade networks often involving the transportation of goods further into Tanzania or Burundi and occasionally stretching as far as the DRC.

A 2024 survey of cross-border traders found a general preference for informal routes due to the delays, fees, difficulties meeting compliance and data requirements, corruption and harassment encountered at official POEs.18

Although the informality of the trading makes it challenging to identify the products being traded, research has reported that the dominant products are staple food commodities.22 Also, in recent years, fuel shortages have made it more common for Burundians to buy petrol in Tanzania for personal use or resale in Burundi.

A VHF-related border closure would generate significant economic hardship and is likely to be circumvented by using informal crossing points. Health screenings at official POEs may create delays that further encourage traders to cross via informal routes.

Labour migration

The movement of workers between Burundi and Tanzania is also common. This normally involves workers from Burundi traveling to Tanzania due to the relatively poor economic situation in Burundi and because labour wages are approximately 60% higher in Tanzania.23 In the borderlands, Burundians often cross into Tanzania in the morning to work at small shops, in bars or on farms before returning home at the end of the day.

It is also common for Burundians to work as agricultural labourers in Tanzania for longer periods, with the agricultural cycle creating seasonal patterns of migration (the busiest periods being February and March, May and June, and September and October). The IOM found that seasonal migrants accounted for 5.7% of the monthly total of cross-border movements (with both directions combined) observed in March 2021.21 Demand for Burundian labour is particularly high during planting and harvest seasons.

Labour migration creates several VHF-related risks. Near the border, it creates daily cross-border contact. Agricultural labourers entering Tanzania for extended periods will often move deeper into the country, creating the risk of infection even when outbreaks are not close to the border. The poor economic situation in Burundi makes an increase in the number of Burundians crossing into Tanzania likely.

Refugees

Since the 1970s, large numbers of Burundians have escaped violence and insecurity by becoming refugees in Tanzania. The number of Burundians who fled to Tanzania has been estimated as at least 217,000 during the 1972 mass killings, about 800,000 during the 1993-2005 civil war and over 200,000 during the 2015 third mandate crisis.24 Most of these refugees have returned to Burundi, while some have become naturalised Tanzanians. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) figures from December 2024 indicate that 142,495 Burundian refugees remain in Tanzania,25 mostly in camps in Kigoma Region.26 Tension between refugee and host populations have been noticeable in and around the refugee camps, and permits are required for anyone wishing to leave or enter them.27

Since 2017, the Burundian and Tanzanian governments have pursued a policy of repatriation and are currently attempting to return 36,000 refugees per year.26 Although displacement from southern Burundi was particularly common,24 refugees in Tanzania come from across Burundi. Research by the IOM has suggested that, due to high social cohesion, the reintegration of refugees in Cankuzo and Muyinga Provinces in Burundi has been more harmonious than in other provinces.28 However, many refugees returning from Tanzania have struggled to find economic opportunities and reintegrate into their communities.24 As a result, some refugees have either attempted to avoid repatriation by remaining in Tanzania without documentation or have tried to return to Tanzania after being repatriated. Former refugees are disproportionately at risk of displacement in the event of another crisis.24,29

Tanzania and Burundi are also destinations for refugees from the DRC. The ongoing insurgency of the M23 in the DRC is likely to result in flows of Congolese refugees crossing into Burundi, and potentially onwards into Tanzania.

Social, cultural and familial ties

It is usual for people to cross the border to visit family and friends. People have been migrating within this region since the precolonial period, resulting in complex patterns of intermarriage and resettlement. It is now common for people living near the border to have family members on the other side. Some of these ties go back generations, while others have resulted from recent patterns of labour migration and displacement. The IOM found that 5.8% of the total observed border crossings (with both directions combined) during March 2021 were for family visits.21

Cross-border social interactions are facilitated by cultural and linguistic overlap in the borderlands. The largest ethnic groups in Ngara District in Tanzania are the Wahangaza and the Washubi. Culturally, they are similar to the people on the Burundian side of the border and their local language has significant overlap with Kirundi. Some Burundians also speak Swahili, particularly those who have settled in Tanzania, those who regularly travel there, those who live in Swahilophone areas in the country and former refugees.

In places close to the border, women’s groups, including savings and credit cooperatives, will sometimes have a mixture of Burundian and Tanzanian members.

Kagera Region in Tanzania is ethnically diverse. In the districts where MVD outbreaks have occurred, the common ethnic groups – including the Wasubi and Wahaya – generally have stronger social and economic connections with Rwanda.

According to 2008 census data, 61% of the Burundian population are Catholic and 20% are Protestant.30 In the Kagera Region in Tanzania, Catholicism is the most practised religion, with Islam, Anglicanism and Pentecostalism also common; Tanzania does not collect data on religious affiliations. People living near the border will sometimes cross to attend weddings and funerals. In churches near the epicentre of the 2025 MVD outbreak, researchers working on UNICEF Tanzania’s ongoing socio-anthropological study have encountered the performance of ‘miracles’ to safeguard against MVD.

Some of the patterns of interaction during social and familial cross-border visits create risks of VHF transmission. On both sides of the border, shaking hands and hugging are common forms of greeting. UNICEF’s study of Kagera Region following the 2023 MVD outbreak found that these practices were not suspended.31 Sharing is an important aspect of the culture on both sides of the border. This often includes eating from the same plates, drinking from the same vessels and smoking the same cigarette. People traveling across the border for social reasons are likely to stay with friends and family. All these practices amplify the risk of VHF transmission.

In Kagera Region, several customary funeral practices have been identified as creating substantial risks of VHF transmission.31 Family members will often wash and dress the body before the funeral. The deceased is often displayed on the burial day, with some mourners touching or kissing the body. It is common for people attending funerals to spend the night at the home of the deceased’s family. On the Burundian side of the border, large gatherings and the sharing of drinks are also common funeral practices.

Healthcare

Despite significant improvements between 2005 and 2015, health outcomes in Burundi remain relatively poor, with persistent financial and structural barriers preventing access to care.32 Cankuzo Province has one health centre for every 19,424 inhabitants and Muyinga Province has one for every 11,716. Early symptoms of VHF can mimic various medical conditions that are endemic in both provinces, including malaria, typhoid fever, pneumonia and diarrhoea. This increases the likelihood that people will not initially attend government health facilities if infected by a VHF. Medical pluralism is widespread in Burundi, and it remains usual for some ill people to consult with indigenous healers and use herbal medications. In 2021, life expectancy at birth in Burundi was projected to be 64 years.33

In Tanzania, there are several ongoing initiatives designed to improve the quality and affordability of healthcare. The government of Tanzania is trying to encourage enrolment in health insurance schemes. However, the rate of enrolment in Kagera Region has been low, with just 4.9% of the population reporting to have government health insurance during the 2022 census.34 The government has also been constructing health facilities, including dispensaries at the village level. The 2022 census recorded 301 dispensaries, 59 health centres and 21 hospitals in Kagera Region.35 However, health outcomes in Kagera Region can be poor by Tanzanian standards. This is reflected in Kagera’s relatively low life expectancy at birth, which was projected to be 63.5 years in 2020 (slightly lower than Burundi’s) compared to the national average of 66.6 years.35 Across Tanzania, the standard of care at lower-level facilities is often perceived to be poor, and problems relating to the availability of drugs remain common.36 These shortages, as well as lengthy waits at government facilities, were both identified as structural barriers to accessing care in areas affected by the 2023 MVD outbreak.31 It is quite common for people in Kagera Region to go directly to private pharmacies when ill.31 Many residents also use indigenous medicine, including herbal remedies.31 UNICEF Tanzania is conducting a socio-anthropological study in the districts in which the 2025 outbreak is occurring. Preliminary results from the ongoing study have identified incidences of several healthcare-related practices that increase risks of VHF transmission: the mixing of blood between men and women as a symbol of unity and collective protection, eating food left by a patient and using the same utensils, comforting ill spouses by sleeping alongside them, and spiritual healing practices that involve touching ill people on the head. Some community members near the epicentre of the 2023 outbreak perceived MVD to be a disease punishing those affected for their ‘wrongdoings’.31 Like Cankuzo and Muyinga Provinces, Kagera Region has a high prevalence of endemic diseases that have similar symptoms to the early stages of VHF.31

People sometimes cross the Burundi-Tanzania border to access healthcare. The IOM’s 2021 study of people crossing the border found that 2.5% of people entering Burundi had a healthcare-related motivation, compared to 1.1% of those entering Tanzania.21 In some places, healthcare facilities are very close to the border. Some cross-border traders and labour migrants prefer to return home if they are unwell. Residents of Ngara District in Tanzania sometimes enter Burundi to buy medication, which can be cheaper and more available than in Tanzania. Price disparities are partly driven by the relative strength of the Tanzanian Shilling when compared to the Burundian Franc.

Risk communication and community engagement (RCCE)

The Tanzania Ministry of Health and UNICEF are co-chairing a risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) coordination mechanism to oversee the planning, coordination and monitoring of tailored RCCE interventions in the districts affected by the 2025 MVD outbreak. Partners include Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), the World Health Organization, Save the Children, AMREF, World Vision and the Red Cross. At the time of writing, key information on MVD has been provided to 195 community health workers, 240 religious leaders and 188 community and women’s group leaders. Community health workers have reached up to 62,507 households out of 87,733 (71%), 97 of 145 schools (67%) and 38,438 of 63,524 students (61%) in Biharamulo District. A comprehensive digital campaign has been launched across various social media platforms (including the Internet of Good Things). At the time of writing, this campaign has reached over 12.6 million people, generating 17.5 million impressions, 16.1 million video views, 14,993 content interactions and 9,413 chatbot responses. UNICEF has distributed 475,000 information, education and communication materials to institutions and schools, including 50,000 posters and 90,000 brochures. Following the implementation of similar strategies during the 2023 MVD outbreak, a UNICEF study of the affected districts (April 2023) found that most participants demonstrated sufficient understanding of MVD transmission and prevention.31

In 2025, RCCE activities in Tanzania have been focused on Biharamulo and Muleba Districts, where MVD cases have been confirmed. Relatively little RCCE has occurred in Ngara District. There is a common perception in Ngara district that MVD is ‘something happening in another place’. In February 2025, a U-Report by UNICEF found that over half of respondents from Kagera Region did not know the symptoms of MVD.37

In Burundi, MVD-related RCCE activities have been led by a national commission under the leadership of the Health Emergency Response Operations Center. At the time of writing, 13,500 posters detailing symptoms, modes of transmission and preventive measures were set to be distributed to priority health districts, including in Cankuzo and Muyinga Provinces. An awareness-raising radio spot about MVD was broadcast on the national radio station, Radio Télévision Nationale du Burundi (RTNB), and will continue to be broadcast on community radio stations in the health districts near Tanzania for a period of 20 days. At the time of writing, the RCCE commission was also working to finalise a television spot to be broadcast on national and private television channels, including online television channels.

During 2022, UNICEF conducted a study focusing on Ebola virus disease knowledge and awareness in three Tanzanian regions, including Kagera. The study found that less than 10% of respondents could identify Ebola virus disease’s main symptoms or modes of transmission, and less than 5% of respondents knew what to do if they or someone they knew was experiencing Ebola virus disease symptoms.38

At the time of writing, there are a lack of data on VHF awareness on the Burundian side of the border. Collecting these data will be an important step in informing the response in Burundi.

Political context

Burundi has been in political crisis since 2015, beginning with the Presidency of Pierre Nkurunziza and continuing with President Évariste Ndayishimiye who took power in 2020. The ruling party, CNDD-FDD, has taken control of state institutions in a shift towards increasingly authoritarian politics. CNDD-FDD has faced allegations of targeting political opponents with extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention and torture.39 Significant restraints have been placed on independent media and civil society organisations. Freedom House rates Burundi as ‘Not Free’ (4/40 for Political Rights, 10/60 for Civil Liberties).40 Burundi is scheduled to hold Legislative and District Council Elections on 5 June 2025. The 21-day campaign period for these elections starts on 12 May 2025.

The political party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi, has ruled Tanzania since the country was formed in 1964. The Presidency of John Pombe Magufuli (2015-2021) saw significant constraints placed on media freedom, civil society activity and engagement with opposition parties. President Samia Suluhu Hassan, who assumed power following Magufuli’s death in 2021, initially lifted some restrictions, including a ban on political assembly. However, the harassment of political opposition and the curtailment of press freedom have continued during her administration. Government officials are often hesitant to provide information, even when it is not confidential, without the approval of their superiors.13 Freedom House rates Tanzania as ‘Partially Free’ (12/40 on Political Rights and 24/60 on Civil Liberties).41 Tanzania must hold Presidential, Legislative and Local Elections no later than October 2025. An official campaign period restricts electioneering activities to the two months before election day.

Elections create a range of additional risks of VHF transmission, with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems identifying more than 40 stages of elections during which people assemble or objects are transferred.42 These stages often involve candidates, party activists and electoral management body staff moving between and within regions or provinces. Some stages, including voter registration and candidate selection, take place months before election day.

Burundian and Tanzanian citizens are not permitted to vote in each other’s elections. In the areas near the border, people are likely to protest if they see ineligible voters trying to cast ballots. Some migrants will choose to return to their country of origin to participate in elections. The protests and violent repression associated with Burundi’s 2015 elections led to mass displacement across the Burundi-Tanzania border. Many left in anticipation of the problems before widespread physical violence began.29 The upcoming elections create potential for further unrest, and people may cross into Tanzania if they perceive this to be likely. Previous Tanzanian elections have seen violent disturbances in Zanzibar, but they tend to be conducted peacefully on the mainland.

References

  1. World Health Organization. (2025, January 14). Outbreak of suspected Marburg Virus Disease – United Republic of Tanzania. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2025-DON552
  2. Tanzania declares Marburg outbreak: Africa CDC mobilizes immediate response. (2025, January 20). Africa CDC. https://africacdc.org/news-item/tanzania-declares-marburg-outbreak-africa-cdc-mobilizes-immediate-response/
  3. Rohan, H. (2023). Situational analysis: Marburg virus disease in Equatorial Guinea and Tanzania. Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform. https://doi.org/10.19088/SSHAP.2023.007
  4. Mmbaga, V., Mrema, G., Ngenzi, D., Magoge, W., Mwakapasa, E., Jacob, F., Matimba, H., Beyanga, M., Samweli, A., Kiremeji, M., Kitambi, M., Sylvanus, E., Kyungu, E., Manase, G., Hokororo, J., Kanyankole, C., Rwabilimbo, M., Kaniki, I., Kauki, G., … Nagu, T. (2024). Epidemiological description of Marburg virus disease outbreak in Kagera region, Northwestern Tanzania. PLOS ONE, 19(9), e0309762. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309762
  5. Sudan virus disease – Uganda. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 March 2025, from https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2025-DON558
  6. World Health Organization. (2025, February 21). Sudan virus disease—Uganda. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2025-DON556
  7. World Health Organization. (2023, April 20). Ebola virus disease. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ebola-virus-disease
  8. World Health Organization. (n.d.). Marburg virus disease. Retrieved 5 March 2025, from https://www.who.int/health-topics/marburg-virus-disease
  9. World Bank. (2024, October 3). Burundi overview. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/burundi/overview
  10. Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). (2025, January 13). Burundi: Acute food insecurity situation November—December 2024 and projection for January—March 2025. https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/details-map/en/c/1159450/?iso3=BDI
  11. The Guardian (Tanzania). (2024, November 5). More regions with GDP per capital below national average. https://www.ippmedia.com/the-guardian/business/read/more-regions-with-gdp-per-capital-below-national-average-2024-11-05-130505
  12. World Bank Group. (n.d.). World Bank Open Data. Retrieved 5 March 2025, from https://data.worldbank.org
  13. Lees, S., & Marchant, M. (2022). Cross-border dynamics between Uganda and Tanzania in the context of the outbreak of Ebola, 2022. Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform. https://doi.org/10.19088/SSHAP.2022.046
  14. United Nations. (n.d.). Trade data. UN Comtrade. Retrieved 5 March 2025, from https://comtradeplus.un.org/TradeFlow
  15. East African Business Council (EABC). (2022, January 30). Pilot run 24 hrs operations at Kabanga / Kabero One-Stop Border to boost Tanzania–Burundi trade. https://eabc-online.com/pilot-run-24-hrs-operations-at-kabanga-kabero-one-stop-border-to-boost-tanzania-burundi-trade/
  16. Tanzanian Ministry of Health. (2025). Situation Report: Marburg virus disease outbreak, Kagera Region.
  17. East African Community. (2015). Rules of origin. https://www.eac.int/documents/category/rules-of-origin
  18. Charles, G. (2024). Challenges of informal cross-border trade facilitation in Tanzania: Lessons from Kigoma border. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 39(5), 791–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2023.2226400
  19. International Organization for Migration (IOM) Tanzania. (2018, November 26). IOM supports governments of Burundi, Tanzania to strengthen humanitarian border management. https://tanzania.iom.int/news/iom-supports-governments-burundi-tanzania-strengthen-humanitarian-border-management
  20. Humanitarian border management between Burundi, Tanzania bolstered by technology. (2019, March 22). International Organization for Migration (IOM). https://www.iom.int/news/humanitarian-border-management-between-burundi-tanzania-bolstered-technology
  21. International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2021). Burundi. Flow monitoring dashboard: United Republic of Tanzania border, March 2021. https://dtm.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl1461/files/reports/BDI_FM_TZA_Dashboard_MAR21_EN.pdf?iframe=true
  22. Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship Development. (2020). Draft report.
  23. FEWS NET Burundi. (2023). Burundi—Food Security Outlook: Persistent high food and fuel prices driving crisis (IPC Phase 3) in the north (October 2023—May 2024). https://reliefweb.int/report/burundi/burundi-food-security-outlook-persistent-high-food-and-fuel-prices-driving-crisis-ipc-phase-3-north-october-2023-may-2024
  24. Schwartz, S. (2019). Home, again: Refugee return and post-conflict violence in Burundi. International Security, 44(2), 110–145. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00362
  25. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (n.d.). Burundi situation: Population dashboard – 31 December 2024. UNHCR Operational Data Portal (ODP). Retrieved 5 March 2025, from https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/114057
  26. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). (n.d.). United Republic of Tanzania. Global Focus. Retrieved 5 March 2025, from https://reporting.unhcr.org/operational/operations/united-republic-tanzania
  27. Sturridge, C., Kamanga, K. C., Ruhundwa, J., Khalid, M., Mjalilla, F., Mseke, R. H., & Komanya, M. L. (2023). What aid actors need to know about social cohesion in displacement: A Tanzania case study [HPG working paper]. ODI. www.odi.org/en/ publications/what-aid-actors-need-to-know-about-social-cohesion-in-displacement-a-tanzania- case-study
  28. International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2024). Burundi – Stability Index Round 4 (January—June 2024). IOM. https://dtm.iom.int/fr/node/46861
  29. Purdeková, A., & Birantamije, G. (2023). Theorising repeated displacement: The role of anticipation and precedent. The case of Burundi. Political Geography, 100, 102795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102795
  30. Republique du Burundi, Ministere de L’interieur. (2008). Recensement general de la population et de l’habitat du Burundi 2008.
  31. UNICEF. (2023). Report on socio-cultural anthropological response study on Marburg virus disease in Kagera Region: 31st March 2023 to 13th April 2023.
  32. Falisse, J.-B., & Habonimana, D. (Upcoming). Burundi’s health policy since 2005: An ‘unholy’ alliance for universal health coverage?
  33. World Health Organization. (n.d.). Burundi. Data. Retrieved 5 March 2025, from https://data.who.int/countries/108
  34. The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Finance, Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics and President’s Office – Finance and Planning, & Office of the Chief Government Statistician, Zanzibar. (2024). The 2022 population and housing census: Kagera Region basic demographic and socio-economic profile report; Tanzania. https://sensa.nbs.go.tz/publication/kagera.pdf
  35. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2023). Tanzania Human Development Report 2022/23. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-07/tanzania_human_development_report_thdr_202223_0.pdf
  36. Osei Afriyie, D., Loo, P. S., Kuwawenaruwa, A., Kassimu, T., Fink, G., Tediosi, F., & Mtenga, S. (2024). Understanding the role of the Tanzania national health insurance fund in improving service coverage and quality of care. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 347, 116714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116714
  37. UNICEF. (2025). U-Report Tanzania. https://tanzania.ureport.in
  38. UNICEF. (2022). Risk communication and community engagement: Rapid information needs assessment in Geita, Kagera and Mwanza: Ebola preparedness response in Tanzania.
  39. Human Rights Watch. (2023). Burundi. In World Report 2024: Events of 2023 (pp. 107–111). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/burundi
  40. Freedom in the World 2024: Burundi. (n.d.). Freedom House. Retrieved 5 March 2025, from https://freedomhouse.org/country/burundi/freedom-world/2024
  41. Freedom in the World 2024: Tanzania. (n.d.). Freedom House. Retrieved 5 March 2025, from https://freedomhouse.org/country/tanzania/freedom-world/2024
  42. International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). (2024). IFES COVID-19 Briefing Series: Safeguarding health and elections. https://www.ifes.org/publications/ifes-covid-19-briefing-series-safeguarding-health-and-elections

Authors: Robert Macdonald

Acknowledgements: This brief was reviewed by Juliet Bedford (Anthrologica), Alice Janvrin (Anthrologica), Elizabeth Stones (UNICEF Burundi), Gaoussou Nabaloum (UNICEF Burundi), Awet Araya (UNICEF Tanzania), Chikondi Shalom Jim Khangamwa (UNICEF Tanzania), Rachel James (IFRC, Collective Service), Nadine Beckmann (LSHTM) and Samwel Gasuku. Editorial support was provided by Harriet MacLehose (SSHAP editor), and the map was created with support from Hugh Lamarque (independent consultant). This brief is the responsibility of SSHAP.

Suggested citation: Macdonald, R. (2025). Cross-border dynamics between Burundi and Tanzania in the context of viral haemorrhagic fever outbreaks, 2025. Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP). www.doi.org/10.19088/SSHAP.2025.012

Published by the Institute of Development Studies: March 2025.

Copyright: © Institute of Development Studies 2024. This is an Open Access paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0). Except where otherwise stated, this permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited and any modifications or adaptations are indicated.

Contact: If you have a direct request concerning the brief, tools, additional technical expertise or remote analysis, or should you like to be considered for the network of advisers, please contact the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform by emailing Annie Lowden ([email protected]) or Juliet Bedford ([email protected]).

About SSHAP: The Social Science in Humanitarian Action (SSHAP) is a partnership between the Institute of Development Studies, Anthrologica , CRCF Senegal, Gulu University, Le Groupe d’Etudes sur les Conflits et la Sécurité Humaine (GEC-SH), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre, University of Ibadan, and the University of Juba. This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome 225449/Z/22/Z. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funders, or the views or policies of the project partners.

Keep in touch

X: @SSHAP_Action

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.socialscienceinaction.org

Newsletter: SSHAP newsletter