<mark>ownership among refugees; (ii) improving the overall economic environment for hosts and refugees and (iii) allowing refugees to move to where economic opportunities are greatest.</mark> <mark>Each of these brings its own challenges. If it is envisaged that refugees become active in agriculture, then sufficient land needs to be found that is suitable for cultivation. In addition, the current policy of hosting refugees in large camps would have to be revisited, as the amount of land adjacent to the camps which can be used for agriculture is limited, implying that refugee farmers have to travel large distances to reach their plots. The reason agricultural villages tend to be limited in size and to not be not very densely populated is land accessibility. If refugees are expected to engage in agriculture, they need to live close to their land.</mark> <mark>More favorable conditions for economic activities in the areas where refugees are presently hosted can be brought about by improving infrastructure and by sourcing more supplies locally. Still the scope for successfully increasing economic activity in eastern Chad is limited. The area is extremely poor for a reason and as the World Development Report on Economic Geography makes clear (World Bank 2009), economic activity tends to concentrate and is rarely successfully dispersed. The ability of policy makers to promote economic activities in lagging areas is limited. Besides investing in local economic development (most likely in the agriculture sector), it is desirable to focus on developing human capital, on promoting integration (by developing infrastructure and accessibility) while allowing labor to move freely.</mark> <mark>Indeed, our analysis suggests that allowing refugees to move to other areas where economic opportunities are more abundant would be advantageous: when matched to the average rural Chadian person, the predicted poverty gap for poor refugees declines considerably, while the fraction of poor refugees drops considerably (i.e. self-reliance increases). This approach also brings benefits in terms of dignity for refugees and opportunities for their descendants. Yet free movement brings its own challenges as it would have implications for the provision of assistance which would need to be made portable (most likely through mobile cash transfers), unless a model is followed like in Uganda where refugees are free to leave the camp, but once they do, they forego their right to assistance (Betts 2021). Such an approach goes against a need for social protection for refugees, however, though intermediate solutions might be feasible such as offering start-up capital to those who leave the camps, or reducing assistance only gradually when the household’s income rises.</mark> <mark>Specific solutions should be identified for those who would be moving to cities or towns, including upgrading urban infrastructure and – since refugees moving to agglomerations tend to spend more on housing and settle in disadvantaged neighborhoods (R</mark> ozo and Sviatschi 2021) <mark>– subsidizing or promoting affordable housing. More broadly, it will be essential to ensure that towns and cities where refugees settle remain livable so all urban dwellers (both refugees and hosts) can reap the benefits of agglomeration.</mark> <mark>Another perceived challenge associated with free movement is security, as host governments often consider it easier to maintain law and order when refugees coming from the neighboring country are clustered in smaller portions of the territory. However, maintaining high refugee numbers in remote areas with limited prospects for self-reliance – and ultimately limited hope for a better future – also comes with its own security challenges in the long run.</mark> <mark>Behind this question of free movement lies the little-discussed yet essential question of where refugees are settled or resettled after their arrival on Chadian territory once they are able to leave the entry point. Ideally, since full integration is largely beneficial to all parties involved, there should not be camps (or “organized sites” as humanitarians now tend to name them), or at least camps should be approached as</mark> 19