High Commissioner’s opening statement to the seventy-fifth plenary session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme

Good morning.

This has been a year of extremes.

A year of contradictions.

A year of loss and of grief, without doubt, as we continue to witness conflict, violence and abuses that displace millions. Fed by the belief – no: the terrible lie – that the path to peace is found through war.

But also, a year with at least some moments of hope.

This summer, we had the privilege to applaud the best of the human spirit, embodied by the refugee athletes who competed in the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Paris.

And tonight, we will honour Sister Rosita, this year’s Nansen global laureate, along with the four regional award winners Maimouna, Jin, Nada, and Deepti. Five exceptional women who have decided that they simply will not give up. An inspiration to all of us, and a powerful reminder that humanity is not lost, even amidst the pain.

And so, to open this session of the Executive Committee, allow me to share a few reflections as we take stock of the last twelve months. As we try to make sense of the present and look ahead to a future that seems more uncertain than ever.

Madam Chair, dear Katarina

Distinguished Delegates,

Colleagues and Friends,

Nowhere are that uncertainty, that anxiety more palpable at the moment than in Lebanon. I have just come back from a visit to the country, and to Syria. At the risk of sounding obvious, let me stress that the overwhelming message from the people I met – many displaced, and all impacted by war – is that they want peace. A ceasefire for Lebanon but also – as is desperately needed in Gaza – a ceasefire that is sustained by a meaningful peace process, difficult as it may be. This is the only way to break the cycle of violence, of hatred, and of misery. A ceasefire that would also allow the displaced of this conflict – in Lebanon and in Northern Israel – to return home. A ceasefire which would stem the tide to a major regional war with global implications.

You will have seen the images and heard the numbers; hundreds of thousands of displaced inside Lebanon, seeking reprieve from Israeli airstrikes. Once again, the distinction made between civilians and combatants has almost become meaningless. We are told that wars are becoming smarter – surely so in tactical ways, and in sparing military assets; but surely not so in avoiding indiscriminate civilian casualties and causing destruction and displacement. Patterns of conflict that we witness also in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, with the adherence to international humanitarian law reduced to the faintest of fig leaves as clinics and schools are destroyed along with thousands of lives.

Including, in the case of Lebanon, lives of UNHCR colleagues.

I want to honour again the memory of our two colleagues, Ali and Dina (as well as her son Jad). And we think also of other organizations, especially UNRWA – where shockingly 226 colleagues have been killed. We cannot accept that the lives of humanitarians are dismissed as mere collateral damage, or worse, maligned as somehow culpable or complicit. If – in the year in which we celebrate the 75^th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions – we do not restore the collective commitment that protecting civilians is a legal obligation, and uphold its related accountabilities, wars will grow even more murderous and devastating, adding significantly to forced displacement within and across borders.

And yet, even as the humanitarian community mourns, with many of our colleagues and their families themselves impacted, we continue to respond, to stay and deliver. As we always have. As it is our responsibility to do.

And so, we are in Lebanon, working with authorities and partners to meet the most urgent needs. And to respond to everyone’s plight without distinction, on an equal basis. Because airstrikes spare no one. Certainly not the Lebanese people, but also not Syrian refugees, many of whom have been hosted in Lebanon for years, and who find themselves uprooted again. You can appreciate the complexity of the situation, the evident paradox.

Uncertainty clouds the lives of ordinary civilians in Lebanon today. Surely, if airstrikes continue, many more will be displaced and some will also decide to move on to other countries. Many have already decided to cross the Syrian border and Syria has opened the doors to all those fleeing Lebanon.

Both Lebanese refugees and Syrian returnees in Syria need immediate relief assistance – the funding appeal launched in Damascus last week, like the one issued for Lebanon a few days earlier, require urgent contributions. The situation – with Syrians representing 70 per cent of the 276,000 new arrivals – requires also that we move more decisively along the two tracks I have often mentioned in the past.

First, we will continue to work and advocate with the Government of Syria to ensure the safety and security of all those arriving, including Syrians, especially now that many have returned. I discussed this matter in Damascus and trust that the government’s stated commitments to effectiveness, transparency and rights regarding new arrivals will be upheld as is currently happening at the border, and that UNHCR will continue to be able to monitor returns both at border crossings and in places of destination.

Second, this influx occurs in a very fragile country – Syria – where the needs of the people are immense. I hope donors will help in supporting and stabilizing returns, recalling that Security Council resolution 2254 allows for significant interventions not only in the humanitarian sphere, but also in the early recovery space.

Making progress on these two tracks is urgent because of the current, emergency-driven return movement; but it can also provide useful elements to ongoing discussions on sustainable solutions for Syrian refugees.

Madam Chair,

Against the backdrop of crisis in the Middle East, it would be easy – and perhaps it is tempting – to become cynical about multilateralism. To turn inwards. But cynicism and isolation are not luxuries that refugees can afford.

There are 123 million refugees and displaced people today. Their plight demands solutions. And the only way to achieve solutions is by working together.

It was only a few months ago, at the second Global Refugee Forum, that we saw firsthand how the right vision – of solidarity, of unity – could forge a new spirit of cooperation. It is more important than ever, 10 months on, to recall the commitment to inclusion and responsibility-sharing that all of you and many others brought to the Forum, yielding more than 2,000 pledges, across all sectors and all regions.

Under the leadership of the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, Ruven Menikdiwela, UNHCR is following up on the implementation of the pledges, many of which are already having a real, tangible impact on displaced people and on the communities hosting them. There are countless examples. That is the power of multilateralism done right.

And as we start to look ahead to December 2025, and to the meeting of high-level officials which will be the next institutional milestone under the Global Compact on Refugees, let’s keep this spirit alive. We will need to draw on the lessons of the Global Refugee Forum – solidarity, perseverance, and a desire to solve – as we continue to respond to the unrelenting pace of humanitarian emergencies.

Like in Ukraine, where civilians must be helped to prepare for a winter that is likely to be even more difficult than the two previous ones – with so much of the energy infrastructure destroyed by Russian strikes. Or in Myanmar, where the number of displaced people has risen by over two million people in the last year as a result of multiple, ruthless conflicts across the country.

Or in Sudan. A crisis that commands little media attention and enjoys inadequate financial support, but where, today, we see the dramatic consequences of the collective inaction that we have been warning about since the start of the war, 18 months ago. And it can still get worse.

I visited Sudan twice this year. The situation in the country defies description. Famine, disease, floods, and horrific violations of human rights have displaced more than 11 million people – almost twice as many as a year ago. Two million Sudanese people have become refugees, most of whom are hosted in Egypt, Chad, Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan. Fragile countries, battling their own crises and the effects of climate change. And yet they have continued to receive refugees. Just last week another 25,000 Sudanese arrived in Chad fleeing the latest atrocities.

Please reflect: 25,000, adding themselves to 1.2 million refugees already in the country, one of the poorest in the world. At a time when too many countries elsewhere choose to close their borders, or use refugees as political pawns, we cannot take host countries’ generosity for granted. We must drastically increase support to them – the Sudan refugee response plan is only 27 per cent funded – and to the many others that continue to keep their doors and communities open, often with few resources.

In Sudan and the region, too, we do what we can. But we feel a sense of powerlessness. In New York, at the General Assembly, I participated in several discussions on the Sudan crisis and I heard nothing – nothing – that would make us hope that the men with arms devastating their own country would come to the negotiating table. What a dismal proof of the state of leadership in today’s world!

But I also heard that humanitarian assistance, so desperately needed to at least mitigate the consequences of mediocre leadership, is in short supply.

No peace, little resources. Well, Madam Chair – in this lethal equation, something has got to give. Otherwise, nobody should be surprised if displacement keeps growing, in numbers but also in geographic spread. Because the reality is that without a sense of safety and stability, refugees will move on, something so many States are so worried about. Already we have seen the number of Sudanese refugees increase in Libya and in Uganda. Sudanese refugees are crossing the Mediterranean, some even the Channel.

Madam Chair,

Given the number of emergencies, the peace deficit, and the distant prospects for achieving long-term solutions, the fact that most displacement is protracted in time should also come as no surprise.

We must do much more to support long-term hosts. I went to Pakistan in July – as an important example – to bring attention to the situation in the country, and to mobilize resources in support of the efforts of the government to maintain their traditional, generous hospitality in spite of security and other concerns.  I welcomed the pause of the Illegal Foreigners Repatriation Plan – we continue in fact to appeal to all States hosting Afghans not to push anyone back against their will. We will continue to work with Pakistan and Iran – both generous hosts of Afghan refugees for decades – to preserve the available protection space and find ways to mobilize additional support both for refugees and their hosts.

Allow me to make another important argument I made before. The constant escalation of crises also means that UNHCR must work in difficult places and find ways to reach the most vulnerable. In Afghanistan, which I just mentioned, but also in many other countries, where operating in highly politicized and often insecure environments presents particularly complex challenges.

The first one is dealing with a wide cast of actors – formal and informal – who exercise control over territory: sometimes de facto authorities, or governments under sanctions or other international pressures. The second one is access, as in Sudan or Myanmar: cross-line or cross-border operations are particularly delicate, given that conditions on the ground shift quickly and unpredictably. A third issue relates to increasingly stringent oversight requirements demanded by some donor governments.

I am well aware of the geopolitical realities that UNHCR must navigate. I accept the scrutiny that comes with operating in those environments. And let me add that UNHCR is grateful for the support it receives, and completely committed to transparency in all we do.

But I would argue that – in the context of no peace and little resources which I have described – our presence in those difficult environments is not only necessary, but it must be strengthened. It is precisely because of the non-political nature of our work that we are able to be effective. We must retain the flexibility to adapt to changing realities on the ground, so we can deliver on our mandate to protect and to solve.

Madam Chair,

Not only has the scale of displacement emergencies increased exponentially in the last few years – we’ve had on average 40 emergencies every year the last three years – but displacement flows have become more complex.

Conflict, violence and persecution remain the main drivers. The effects of climate change – floods, drought, crop failures, extreme weather events – have become displacement multipliers. Add the lack of economic opportunities, and the reasons compelling people to move, often from the same areas or countries of origin, become difficult to disentangle. It is in those contexts that we speak of mixed flows: of refugees and migrants moving side by side along the same routes. Routes which – by the way – do not all lead to Europe, or the US southern border. There are mixed flows to Southern Africa, to the Gulf, to South-East Asia. These movements create challenges both for countries along the routes, as well as for refugees and migrants themselves who face significant protection risks while on the move.

You might then ask: what can be done?

For a start, do not focus only on your borders. By the time refugees and migrants reach them, governments are under political pressure to make reactive decisions. Reflexively, they focus on controls. On stopping people from moving. On schemes to outsource, externalize or even suspend asylum that breach their international legal obligations. And frankly, that are ineffective.

Instead, look upstream.

Look at root causes in the countries of origin.

Look at opportunities in countries of transit to access protection, including legal stay and regularization programmes, which must be vastly expanded with the support of development partners. Create more legal pathways – resettlement or family reunification among many others – so that fewer people embark on dangerous journeys. The Oficinas de Movilidad Segura – the Safe Mobility Offices in the Americas – are an example of multi-purpose hubs where UNHCR and IOM – a key partner in this endeavour – work together to strengthen these pathways – pathways that complement extraordinary inclusion and regularization efforts conducted by many countries in the region, such as Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, to name a few.

And when refugees and migrants do reach your borders, we will support you in developing lawful responses that meet the challenges of mixed movements. These include fair and fast asylum procedures that can quickly identify those in need of international protection, but that also provide for returning people to their country – safely, and in dignity – when they are found not to be in need of such protection.

This shared responsibility can also effectively be carried out through regional cooperation mechanisms – provided they fully respect the right to seek territorial asylum. And regional disembarkation schemes that can create efficiencies by pooling resources – to search and rescue, to process, and critically to receive or return people after their claims have been fairly assessed – can also be explored.

UNHCR stands ready to provide expert advice and play a monitoring role to ensure that such arrangements are lawful and feasible.

Madam Chair,

It is encouraging to see the conceptual shift towards ‘route-based’ approaches being advanced in various regional instruments, from the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection to the European Union’s Pact on Asylum and Migration. Of course, the true barometer of their effectiveness will be in how they are implemented.

Irrespective of which model is used to operationalize route-based responses, significant support and investments will be required to build the capacity of host and transit countries. And to ensure compliance with international legal obligations.

That point is worth repeating. Yes, it is clear that there is a need for innovative solutions – solutions that are both principled and pragmatic, and we are your partners in this endeavour, In so doing, we will continue to exercise our mandate, and all can count on us to forcefully defend the institution of asylum.

Madam Chair,

While we strengthen our responses to refugee crises, we cannot afford to lose sight of the situation in countries of origin. We must seek to address the root causes of displacement, and work toward solutions.

Including for internally displaced people, whose number has doubled in the last decade, and many of whom will become refugees if they are not supported first within their country. In the last few years there has been renewed attention on this issue – which we welcome – including through the Secretary General’s Action Agenda on IDP solutions, very deftly lead by Robert Piper, the Special Advisor.

Robert will surely share with you the conclusions of his work. Here, suffice it to say that we will continue to work with him and his team on developing a coherent UN system-wide response to solutions for internal displacement. UNHCR will strongly support the approaches and mechanisms to be put in place by the Secretary-General in the next few weeks to pursue the objective of the Action Agenda once the Special Advisor’s role comes to an end.

And solutions remain equally crucial – and difficult – in refugee contexts.

Close to 70 per cent of all refugees are hosted in countries neighbouring their own. Most refugees want to return to their countries – voluntarily and in dignity – when conditions allow. But remember that the key element in determining returns is the refugees’ assessment of those conditions. UNHCR will always inform them, and share its own views, but the decision is theirs. That’s what voluntariness is about. 

That does not mean that the situation in countries of origin will always be suitable for large-scale returns. But it does point to the need for flexibility, and support, when refugees decide to return – voluntarily, I stress again, and sometimes unfortunately under duress – in imperfect conditions. That is one lesson to be drawn from Burundi, or from South Sudan, or even Syria. Let us support those communities where people are returning, so that returnees can re-grow their roots. So that we can break the cycle of displacement.

Finally, resettlement and complementary pathways form another important piece of the solutions puzzle. I am proud to say that we aim to submit close to 200,000 refugees for resettlement this year – a record – and want to thank resettlement countries (the United States in particular, but also Australia, Canada, Germany and others) for their solidarity, and for helping us deliver on the objectives of the Global Compact on Refugees.

Madam Chair,

Flexibility must also be afforded to us when it comes to funding. As you know, our financial outlook, especially earlier in the year, was particularly bleak, and contributed to a range of precautionary measures. A freeze was placed on expenditures across our activities. And although part of a larger realignment review, 1,000 positions were discontinued – 6 per cent of all positions at UNHCR.

These measures came on top of our usual efforts to prioritize our activities. We are now consolidating the various strands of the reform that we started several years ago – decentralization, systems modernization, partnerships with development and other actors – which will make us even more efficient. A reform that will enable us to deliver on the vision of the Global Compact on Refugees. I would like to acknowledge Deputy High Commissioner Kelly Clements for her role in steering UNHCR through this phase of our modernization, and for the collaborative manner in which these efforts were carried out, especially in the broader context of the UN system’s reform initiatives.

Thankfully, our funding situation for this year, while still well below the needs, has somehow improved, much of it, once again, due to the support from the United States, which year after year continues to provide the lion’s share of UNHCR’s budget. Thank you, most sincerely. And let me also mention the other four top donors – Germany, the European Union, Sweden and Denmark – as well as those, like the Republic of Korea, who substantially increased their contributions.

But our US$10.8 billion budget is still only 45 per cent funded. And the same funding uncertainties hangs over our 2025 budget, and likely beyond. That volatility combines with earmarking. So far this year, only 14 per cent of our funding is completely flexible, thanks to the usual champions: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and of course many private donors, with the support of national partners like España con ACNUR. This low percentage makes it difficult to respond with the required agility. Especially as we are so dependent on a handful of donors, with no guarantee that current funding levels will be maintained. We cannot continue to operate like that. And neither can you. This approach is not sustainable.

Madam Chair,

Let me therefore elaborate on sustainability, especially in the overall context I just described. A context where emergencies have increased exponentially; where, in the absence of solutions, protracted crises last years; and where humanitarian funding has become inflexible and unpredictable and has not kept pace with needs. And frankly, is unlikely to.

This creates problems for everyone. First and foremost, for displaced people and host communities, whose needs are barely met and who live in constant uncertainty. Of course, by extension this affects host countries, which from one year to the next cannot plan and respond appropriately because funding levels are so unpredictable.

UNHCR and partners become stretched. As a result, we must make difficult decisions, often at the last minute, to maintain or suspend activities, or to renew partnership agreements or not.

This approach also puts donor partners under pressure, given the multiplication of humanitarian crises, which compete for funds with other domestic and international budgetary priorities.

Sustainability is not a new concept. It was central to the Grand Bargain, to the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants and of course to the Global Compact on Refugees, which all of you affirmed six years ago! And subsequently reaffirmed in your pledges at two Global Refugee Fora.

The key question then is: how can we implement all those commitments?

Let me be clear: we must not move away – not move away – from humanitarian aid, but we must address our over-reliance on it. Because it is designed for short-term humanitarian responses. Because it is quickly exhausted, not meant to prop up long-term or recurrent activities. Because it not only creates dependency but does little to contribute to the development of national capacities. In fact, it can even result in undermining and weakening them. Think of schools funded by humanitarian budgets which for many years were accessible to refugees only. Or vocational training that excludes local community members. Such parallel systems offer limited opportunities, are not sustainable financially and create tensions within communities by pitting displaced people and their hosts against each other. The same thing happens when local services and opportunities are denied to displaced people. It is a recipe for instability. Especially in a context where more than half of all refugees are under the age of 25. Professor Muhammad Yunus, the Chief Adviser of the new government of Bangladesh, has spoken eloquently of the plight of hundreds of thousands of young Rohingya refugees – dependent on decreasing humanitarian aid, disconnected from opportunities, but connected to the world, where many negative forces are lurking, ready to exploit their despair.

Exclusion is not only bad – it is a risk. Including refugees and displaced people in their host communities, as appropriate and as circumstances permit, is a more sustainable option.

Let me dwell on inclusion for a moment. I know that many host countries have justified concerns that inclusion and integration could lead to the same place – when permanent integration may be simply impossible in some contexts.

But inclusion is not integration. Inclusion is for the duration of displacement, for self-reliance, to the extent possible. It does not change the commitment – which we all made – to finding durable solutions. To working towards returns in safety and dignity, towards resettlement and other pathways, as is clearly spelled out in the Global Compact on Refugees.

And indeed many of you are already including refugees! And in many different contexts. In Uganda, Colombia, Mauritania, Brazil, Iran, Mexico – the list is long. What all these countries have concluded – as has Kenya in preparing to launch the “Shirika” plan – is that it is more efficient, and more sustainable, for refugees to be self-reliant, and to be included in national structures and systems, than to be left dependent entirely on humanitarian aid.

Host countries also have another concern – that of being left alone, with humanitarian aid receding and development assistance for refugees and hosts slow to come, if it comes at all. This is a very understandable worry, and we are working with development actors to address it in refugee contexts. Because sustaining support for refugees and their hosts will simply not happen without international assistance. And because this model is not about shifting the burden to host countries. It is about strengthening – including through financial support – the capacities and resilience of host countries and communities so they can successfully, and sustainably, include displaced people in their national response systems for as long as displaced people are there.

This approach has several clear advantages. It benefits more clearly and directly host communities. It draws on the human capital of displaced people, who in turn are more committed to the host communities in which they live because they become participants. It allows host countries to attract additional development financing, including in remote areas where often refugees are located. It benefits UNHCR, as it allows us to focus on protection and solutions. And donors, as this approach can relieve some of the pressure on humanitarian funding.

Today, Sudanese health professionals work in Juba’s clinics and hospitals. In European countries, Ukrainian refugees have access to the job market. Refugee inclusion contributes to economic growth and to social stability. The literature on this is clear, vast, and growing. Inclusion is not only an approach for the present but an investment in the future. And importantly, refugees will be better prepared for their eventual return to their countries of origin.

We at UNHCR look forward to working with interested states in moving further along the sustainability path. Not all situations might be conducive, and obviously it would be wrong to apply a “one size fits all” approach to very different contexts. But wherever there is potential, and willingness, we stand ready to engage.

On our side, we will work on stronger partnerships, with host governments, development organizations, financial institutions, multilateral banks. In many places, from Uganda to Colombia, cooperation is well advanced and has impact. We will also multiply efforts to mobilize the attention and resources of the private sector, unleashing the potential – in investments, market value and human capital – of displaced and host communities.

We – like other humanitarian organizations – have been working on this for several years already. But we must accelerate, scale up and engage more partners. We know from regional consultations and bilateral meetings that many apprehensions remain, especially on implementation – including on how this new approach will fit with other existing frameworks at country level. There are questions also about financing; about how the shift to a sustainable aid model would work differently in middle- and lower-income countries, for example.

We hear you. We will continue the dialogue in an open and consultative manner, as we always have, so we can gradually address these important questions. I have asked Raouf Mazou, the Assistant High Commissioner for Operations, to coordinate the discussion on our side. We will also need to deepen our reflection on how we programme and budget, including whether we should move to multi-year budgets to support multi-year strategic planning – crucial to sustain self-reliance, as is already the practice across many UNHCR operations.

But none of this will be advanced – not to mention decided – without consultations with you, in full respect of our governance structure and mechanisms: respect that I trust will be mutual. And I would argue that host countries should provide overall leadership to these consultations, so their concerns and needs can remain front and center as we move ahead.

Madam Chair,

Before I conclude, let me say how pleased I am that statelessness is in special focus at this year’s Executive Committee. And we will have a segment following this, so I will not say too much.

Simply to recall that in 2014, we launched the #IBelong campaign, with the objective of ending statelessness within a decade. It was a very ambitious objective, but a deliberate one. Because, even though we have not eradicated statelessness, the progress of the last decade has shown that we are on the right track.

More than half a million people have gained nationality since the launch of the #IBelong campaign. Half a million people who became visible members of society. Who gained the right to do things we take for granted every day: open a bank account, register for school.

In a context where solutions are so elusive, it is important to take a moment and celebrate these achievements, that have such a profound impact on the lives of those who can finally claim their nationality – their identity, truly – and proclaim, without fear and without doubt, that they exist.

I want to congratulate all of you for your effort and commitment, though I want to commend Kyrgyzstan in particular for becoming the first country to resolve all known cases of statelessness. Just joined in the last few weeks by Turkmenistan in this exceptional achievement. Really, well done to both countries. And well done to all stakeholders: regional bodies, civil society groups, stateless-led organizations – some represented here today – my own colleagues, and of course stateless people themselves, for your contributions, and for the collaborative manner in which progress was achieved.

Of course, as we will also hear shortly, gaps still remain – in legal frameworks, data, and solutions available. Our work is not done: and more on what comes next in a few moments!

Madam Chair,

Distinguished delegates,

Colleagues and friends,

In closing, and as we look to the year ahead, let those words ring in our ears: our work is not yet done. Next year – the year in which UNHCR will observe its 75^th birthday – will certainly be another challenging year. I beg you all that we continue to work – together and with humility – to seize every opportunity to find solutions for refugees. To build on the promise of the Summit of the Future. To uphold – including in this meeting, please – the non-political character of humanitarian work.

And as we do, let us please hold on to hope. The hope that peace will finally come to all those countries where it seems so distant, so impossible.

Because, and I quote what Pope Francis said yesterday, war “is a defeat for everyone, especially for those who believe themselves invincible”.

Let us remind ourselves – wars, too, shall end.