UN Geneva - Multimedia Newsroom : Report on Forced Displacement in 2022

Hello everyone and welcome to today's embargoed press conference.

As many of you are familiar with a head of World Refugee Day, which is celebrated on the 20th of June every year, we launch our annual Global Trends Report which highlights all of the statistical data regarding refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced and stateless people from the year before.

As with last year, we will be adding some highlights to reflect some of the recent upheavals this year in 2023, including new numbers from Ukraine and Sudan, but the official Global Trends Report will report on the figures of 2022.

With that, as you all know, this is a strictly embargoed press conference, so anything that you use while on the record should be held until the 14th of June.

And I have with me today the honour of presenting the UN **** Commissioner for Refugees, Mr Filippo Grandi.

And he will start with an opening statement.

And we also have to his right, our senior most statistics and information colleague from UNHCR, Tarek Abu Shabke.

And he will also be available for any of the questions that you have that are more technical or based on the figures and facts of the trends that will be presented.

After that, we will have a short question and answer session.

So we will start first with the **** Commissioner.

The floor is yours.

Thanks, Junga.

And greetings, everybody.

Again, apologies for my delay.

Look, I know that this is about last year and all that, but I think I'll give you an update about what's happening now.

It's more interesting for you most likely.

First of all, yes, as you will expect or maybe you already know, last year I think we announced a figure of 103 million people displaced and refugees.

The we, we have reached now 110 million.

So the figure has gone up again.

I don't know how many years, Tarek knows the statistics better than me, but I think it's been 7-8 years or even more in which every year this figure has been rising for all the reasons that you know, of the 110 million, which is a little bit more of an estimate because it includes also in particular the large displacement of Sudanese people since the 15th of April.

Of this figure, roughly one third, 2/3 is the proportion between refugees and those that are still refugees but in their own countries.

So internally displaced people, so 35,000,000 refugees and about 60 to 63,000,000 displaced people.

The big, the drivers of this further, unfortunately further increase have been the ones you can expect.

But in particular, of course, last year was the situation in Ukraine that displaced millions both inside and outside the country.

And this year has been the situation in Sudan.

The latest, latest figures of Sudanese refugees, meaning people that are sorry, I should say of people that have left Sudan, mostly Sudanese nationals, but also some refugees in Sudan from other countries that go back to their country because they lose support in Sudan, S Sudanese for example, and a few third country nationals.

That figure is in excess of 450,000.

I'm pretty sure that it will reach unfortunately half a million in the space of a couple of days maximum if the trends continue, which unfortunately they do.

And of course, you have almost not yet about 1.4, but almost one and a half million people newly displaced inside Sudan.

This is another big.

Now it's much more difficult to estimate the figure inside because access is patchy.

But so you have almost 2 million people now, new people that are adding themselves.

That's why I think the official figure for 2022 is about 108 million.

Then if you add the Sudanese and you know, give and take a few others, you reach 110 million.

But I would say this is where we stand today.

We have 110 million people that have fled because of conflict, persecution, discrimination, violence, often mixed with other motives, in particular the impact of climate change.

So you have quite a package, the usual I would say package of causes that have caused a further increase.

You may recall just a couple of years ago or maybe last year when we announced that for the first time we had gone over 100 million displaced people.

Well, already 10% more have been added to this figure.

It's quite an indictment on the state of our world, if I may say, to have to report that some of the trends continue.

The majority of the people that flee, flee not to rich countries, but to countries that are either poor or middle income, count low or middle income countries about 76%.

And this is an important, you know, I, I highlight this, I've highlighted this I think every time in the past few years.

But I think it's quite important to recall that, to remind ourselves, because I think the prevailing rhetoric is still that all the refugees go to the rich countries.

This is actually wrong.

It's quite the opposite, 70% of the refugees, meaning of those 35,000,000 actually flee to the country next to their country.

Most of them actually want to go back home.

So there is a lot of in those, in these figures that seem a bit dry that tell a story that is so different from what we constantly hear, especially from some politicians.

And of course, few people have returned.

Only about 350,000 are reported in this current report, refugees, although a larger number of people, about 5 million, have returned among the internally displaced, which is interesting.

It means that there is a scope there for solution.

You know, there is now an office here in the Palais that deals with solutions for internally displaced people.

So I, I hope they'll take note, I'm sure they'll take note of this figure because it means that there is a space there maybe to work on some solution.

I'll go back to that in a moment.

I want to make 4 reflections.

The first one is that I hope everybody realises that we live in a world, the world which I have partly described in my initial opening remarks, in which we are constantly confronted with emergencies.

If you look at the trend, you know we have a mechanism in UNHR and in the UN to classify situations as emergencies in different ways.

I looked at trends in the past.

We used to do this eight to 10 * a year.

Last year we did it 35 times, 35 times we had to declare that the certain situation was either an emergency or a renewed emergency in a situation where maybe things had quieted down and picked up again in in a crisis form.

Yet of these emergencies, very few make your headlines.

Very few make your headlines.

And Sudan, I think is a very good case in point.

I told you the figures.

This is a very major emergency.

Now, of course, not everything is as big as Ukraine, even in terms of impacted people, sure.

But to have almost 2 million people on the move in the space of less than two months since the 15th of April, just because you have to military leaders fighting for supremacy basically is quite a dramatic situation.

And yet, and this is not a criticism to you, I know you're here in Geneva.

You do your best.

But frankly, this was a headline everywhere until there were Western citizens to be evacuated.

Once that was done, it disappeared, almost disappeared.

So please help us talk about this emergency situation because the fact that it has such little visibility makes it much harder for us to mobilise resources the the Sudan.

Sudan has.

The Sudan crisis has generated 2 funding appeals by the UN, one for inside Sudan, 16% funded 162 months into the crisis, and one for the refugee hosting countries which UNHR coordinates 13% funded.

I remind you that four weeks into the Ukraine emergency, all our appeals were 25% funded already 4 weeks.

We're now at almost 8 weeks.

I think so.

Sorry, but there is a discrepancy here that needs to be addressed.

There is an injustice that needs to be addressed and of course, you know, more visibility for this crisis ensures also that we can argue more convincingly from a stronger point of view about protection for all the people who flee.

So that is also an important.

So this is my first point.

My second point is that all of this increased displacement that is often the result of brutal violence, like in Sudan, and complete disregard for international humanitarian law, like in Ukraine, for example.

All of this is met increasingly with a more hostile environment, especially when it comes to refugees.

And I would say I'm actually almost everywhere, in almost every country, everywhere.

I hear increasingly, and let me be very clear, I appreciate this argument.

It has some truth, but it cannot always prevail.

The considerations made by governments are security based.

It's we have to think about our security.

We have a duty to our people.

These big flaws threaten that.

True, it's true, but it's also true sometimes.

But it cannot be the only consideration.

But, and this is what we owe or we hear, you know, our public opinion is tired.

We cannot take more people.

Well, you know, leadership is about convincing your public opinion that there are people that deserve international protection and therefore everything needs to be done.

But these are difficult discussions.

In the past, they've never been easy.

Let me be clear.

But I think that the the challenges increase.

So we see push backs, we see tougher and tougher immigration or refugee admission rules, we see in many countries a criminalisation of immigrants and refugees, blaming them for everything that has happened and and so forth.

I do hope that the Global Refugee Forum, which we are going to convene at the end of the month, sorry, I'm going to fast at the end of the year will will be a place where we can talk frankly about some of those issues.

I can speak more about the the forum if you wish.

The Third Point I wanted to make, I somehow already made it, but let me highlight it, is that solutions to these movements are increasingly difficult to even imagine even put on the table.

But because of all the things with, you know, we are in a very polarised world where international tensions play out all the way into humanitarian issues and this is really very, very worrying.

But my message here is a little bit more positive.

They're not absent.

We are not in a world where solutions do not happen.

You remember, I think I told you ad nauseam till you were fed up of me saying this, that last year I I observed World Refugee Day in Abidjan, in Cote d'Ivoire.

Because really, I think the Ivorians have done a good job to get people back and to solve this problem.

Well, I'm pleased to tell you, maybe you know already, but next week I'll be observing World Refugee Day in Kenya.

And why will I do that?

Because President Ruto has actually told me and told us and told everybody that he wants to look differently at the situation of the half million refugees that they host in their country.

And he wants to look at solutions, including if they have to stay there, how can they, you know, how can they be integrated in the communities hosting them?

Way to go.

It's a long March towards that and there will be a lot of need for international resources.

But I thought that if the president, if the leader of an important country like Kenya, where the refugee issue has always been very controversial, as you know, makes these statements, it's very important to recognise and support that.

So not all is lost.

You may be sceptical or less sceptical, but you know, the fact that the European Union has agreed to some further steps towards a pact on asylum and migration last week is not something to be ignored.

We're not yet there even.

Even the process is not finished.

That was only a milestone in the process, but I think it's a positive sign.

Hopefully then you have other signs.

Resettlement, You know what is resettlement?

Moving refugees from 1 country to 1/3 country, especially people that have specific protection needs, went down dramatically during the Trump administration years because the US almost zeroed out their programme.

Now President Biden fortunately decided to beef it up again.

They're doing that.

So last year, this is last year, Taric, right?

114,000 people resettled is still a drop in the ocean.

Let's face it, if you have 35,000,000 refugees, but it's double the figure of the year before.

So there is a little ray of hope there.

And of course I also look at other things.

The way Ukrainians were received is positive.

You know, I will never criticise that, although you know, the fact that I say it contrasts with refugees that have not been received in the same way is not the criticism to the positive reception to the Ukrainians that is very much needed as we see every day.

And among those a very important signal.

Remember more we received last year, mostly for Ukraine, but also other situation, more than a billion dollars in private contributions.

This we never got before and this is about the sixth of our more of our almost 15% or maybe more.

I'm bad at figures of our contributions last year from private sources.

That is the translation of a sense of solidarity, which by the way was not only in Europe, was in many, many countries of the world.

So I think it's these are positives.

And again, I hope that the Global Refugee Forum will be a place where we can take stock of these positives and build on them to try to counter the negatives that are all over the place.

My, my final point.

And I, without shame, take advantage of having all of you to say that we are not in a good financial situation this year.

So my final message is not very good.

It's very, very early to tell you.

You know how much we are, you know, we come from a sequence of years in which we were never fully funded.

The average was between 50 and 60% of our the budget that was presented to our member states.

But we were steady in that percentage, which allowed us to programme reasonably well what we could or could not do.

We had to prioritise a lot, but we could do quite a lot of work with our partners.

This year it's very earlier because it we're only in June, but we are at 32% of our funding.

But we struggle.

We struggle more than in previous years.

You all know that aid budgets are under pressure everywhere.

It's a combination of the war in Ukraine, post COVID, economic pressures, inflation and many times even the fact that we need to work in such volatile situations like Afghanistan or Burkina Faso or other places that Yemen, that this is not very encouraging to donors.

They are very worried about where the funds, how the funds.

We keep telling them, you know, you have to take some risks if you want to do humanitarian work in fragile situation.

But this is a difficult fundraising argument.

And the result of all these combined factors is a very tight.

You have certainly been following the financial challenges of our very close partner or rather sister organisation, or maybe cousin, because they don't like too much brotherhoods or ICRC colleagues, you know, they're very independent.

We respect that, but we work so closely with them everywhere and we are very worried about their situation.

You know, work food programme, you've heard many, many organisation, I think it's quite widespread across the humanitarian spectrum.

And it's something that, you know, I think we are managing, we try to manage, but I want to flag that it may be a growing challenges also in the years ahead.

And the the relative more positive trend of the next two years needs to be restored because the needs are not waiting for these contributions, they're just going up year in and year out.

So these are the reflections I wanted to make linked more or less closely to the figures, the 110 million that is really the headline figure here.

And thank you again for listening patiently and for your your support.

And I see many questions.

Thank you.

So when I call on you, if you could please say your name and the media outlet that you're connected with.

We'll start with Tamer, please.

And we'll take three questions at a time because there are a lot of hands up on or maybe even 1 by 1 quickly, quickly because I think they prefer.

Yes.

Tamara, go ahead.

Thank you very much.

On behalf of Mechanic, I would like to welcome you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Tamara online in Kuwait news agency.

My question is about your comment on the new European strategy dealing with the refugees.

There was a meeting in Sweden recently and and it seems that there is an agreement on the new strategy in the EU.

In addition, there is contact with North African countries to to make them as North African media side, to make us as a housekeeper or police of European.

How do you comment on those issues?

Your question is really two questions.

The first question is I, I mentioned it, but let me be more precise.

You know, the, the European Commission already a couple of years back put on the table of their member states.

So the 27, a proposal for a pact on a European asylum, a European pact on asylum and migration.

I think this is the right word.

We expressed our support for that.

I nothing is perfect, it can be improved, but I think it was a very good attempt to balance all the, you know, the security, protection, national interest, all the, all the different tensions around this issue.

It was a very good attempt to summarise them and to make a proposal fair to all Member States and relatively fair, or I would say fair to the people on the move and to their hosts.

Now this has generated enormous discussions.

To the credit of the Swedish presidency, which ends this month, they managed to get approved by at this particular meeting, which was a meeting of justice and Home Affairs ministers, a very important portion of this pact.

It's not the whole pact, it's a portion of this pact that deals with asylum regulation and procedures, but it's a very important one.

So we're happy that this has happened.

But first of all, even disapproval now needs to go through further steps.

You know, European policies are complicated.

They have to go to European Parliament and Council to be finally approved.

And this I understand, takes several more months and then this is not the whole pact yet.

This is a big chunk, one of the most controversial.

So I think if they have agreed on that, I think they can move forward.

This was not total consensus.

They had some disagreements, but it has passed according to the rules and so it's very positive.

Now on the dialogue with North Africa, what we have always said to the European countries is if you really want to address these flows of people coming across the Mediterranean or in other ways through Europe, it cannot be just about controlling your borders.

You have to, you know, I use always these words, you have to work upstream.

These are long journeys that people make and every country concerned should be part of the dialogue because it is true.

And we have exactly the same discussion with the United States regarding the Americas.

It it's may be possible that some people do not want to go so far away from their country if they have opportunities in the countries along the way.

But to do that, you have to create those opportunities and work with those countries to do it.

So it's not just a matter of North Africa and Europe, it's a collective discussion that needs to take place.

We have launched some proposals.

I call this the panoramic view on mixed flows, right?

Panoramic, because you cannot look at it only in One Direction, only the borders of Europe or only what is happening in Libya or only what is happening in Sudan.

It has to be really comprehensive because most likely solutions are all along the journeys, including, by the way, at the borders of Europe.

One thing that we always tell, sorry if I elaborate, but this is an important .1 thing that we always tell the Europeans or the United States is let's work together.

But one thing we will never be able to agree to is that nobody is allowed to seek asylum in Europe or in the United States or in the United Kingdom, for that matters.

So that door needs to remain open.

We can help maybe reduce the pressures and reduce the causes of people moving or moving on, but we cannot compromise on asylum everywhere.

People need to be able to seek asylum where they feel it's safe to seek asylum.

And if it has to be Europe, this door has to remain open.

But I we agree with them that it's important to build capacity all along so that it becomes a collective undertaking and the pressures are reduced on individual countries.

I'll do 3 in the room and then three online just to make sure it's it's fair.

Christian, go ahead, please.

Thank you.

Mr Handy, German Press Agency I I was surprised that you are so positive about the pact or or the agreement that was signed or agreed upon last week, because it also entails detention facilities at the borders.

So I wonder why they want to comment on that.

But is it a possibility to frame for the for the Nordic countries or for the richer countries?

Is it a possibility to frame the reason why it's good to have good refugee, asylum and migration policies in a way that has benefits for those countries?

Or is that not even necessary because it's a question of solidarity And, and OK, I see your, this is an important also, you made two points.

You see, everybody's making two points, but no, I did not say the pact is perfect.

I'm sorry.

Maybe I should have been more clear.

There are issues that are of some concern.

By and large.

However, I think it's a positive step and you know, we're so happy that the Europeans agree on something which is not too negative in order to move on.

This is the most important aspect of it because that's the only way we can address this issue.

Detention, by the way, yes, thank you for giving me the opportunity.

You know, we cannot, You know, these are complex issues also from the normative point of view, but our strong view is that asylum seekers should not be put in gaol.

Seeking asylum is not a crime, right?

But we understand that there are some complex situation where they want, for example, people not to abscond or not, because this becomes more problematic for states.

But this is our fundamental advice.

And in particular, we advise against the tension of minors, which in many cases happens both here in Europe and in other places.

On your second question, I think it's a mix, right?

I think that the the fund, you know, as the **** Commissioner for Refugees, I have to say, and I say it with conviction, that granting the right to asylum to people who seek it is an obligation legally according to international law, and it is morally right, right especially for countries like European countries that always claim to have European values.

This is a European value.

If we can talk about European values so that the moral, the legal, more important but also moral argument is extremely important and needs to be made, then we need to also say, but you know, it's not all disaster from the contrary.

Even we, when you have large numbers of refugees, most of them exceptions happen, but most of them will want to do well and to contribute to their countries.

And look at a very vast majority of Syrian refugees in your country.

Let's remember the acrimonious debate of 2015 and 16.

And look, from what I know, not all of them once again, but they're doing well, they're contributing and they're becoming an active part of society.

Many leaders increasingly I have to say, are telling me that something that I've always been convinced and I've always been saying myself, the real challenge for Europe is migration.

Really Europe, just like North America, in other rich countries, even Japan needs migration without migrants, with the with the birth rates being so low, without migrants, society cannot renew itself.

The economies will not hold.

Who will take care of the older people?

You know, there's many, many factors there.

Now, this is migration.

This is broader than refugees.

But there is very little certainty in the migration equation.

Now, this is not my field.

I'm invading Antonio Victorino's area.

But he will not mind if I do that.

And you know the Compact on migration that the pact, the Compact on Migration says exactly that.

Safe and orderly migration with predictable in much larger number of visas available may help many people move safely.

And may I say here, I'm a little bit parochial, goes back to UNHCR may avoid all this pressure being put on the asylum channel, which is the only one through which people can move in many countries, even if they're not refugees at all.

And this causes a lot of problems.

The asylum challenge gets stuck, doesn't function.

People started saying, you see asylum is wrong, we have to reform it.

We have to eliminate.

We hear these voices everyday.

So I I think that your question has two-part.

You know, there are my answer has two parts.

There is a moral and legal argument, but there is a also an argument of usefulness and importance.

And refugees can be part of this contribution as well.

There are over 12 hands up.

So if you can please stick to to one question, please.

Kathleen, Catherine, I have in fact, yes, one question, but two elements in the question, it's regarding, it is regarding what you said about that in fact 70% of the refugees go to neighbouring countries and that most of those countries are poor or middle income countries.

The second low or middle income, Yes, The second point, you told us that you received more than a billion dollars from the private sector in private contributions also individuals.

Yeah, sectors and individuals, Yeah.

And as you say that you are not in a good financial situation for the moment, is the future lies the future of UNHCR into private contributions.

And if it's the case, how do you see things?

Thank you.

No, it's not it's a straight Massica thing.

It's a, it's a, it's a straightforward question.

It's actually a very important question.

The answer is no.

If I may, UNHR is a government, intergovernmental international organisation, UN organisation.

The bulk of the support will have to continue to be by governments.

It's still it is more than 80 percent, 85%, and it has to be for a variety of reasons.

One, it's more predictable.

In the unpredictability, it is more predictable.

Second, there is an ownership.

We belong to governments, we are not an NGO.

So they have a duty, they don't have any obligation.

You know, it's not like the UN budget, the cask of the peacekeepers.

They have, you know, they are funded by quotas.

We are not funded by quotas, as you know.

So it's voluntary.

But there is a kind of responsibility sharing that we want to continue to highlight.

Having said this, it's great that we have more private contributions because this is actually both important financially and it is also important because it creates awareness in civil society about this issue.

You know, we have contribution in money, but more and more we have companies in particular that step up and say we want to work with you, you know, and we can, you know, we can help you with technology, with business models, with the employment of refugees.

So this is all positive.

And so maybe I was a bit blunt to say no, I think this hopefully will grow.

But the bulk, the backbone of our financial support in particular, I'm sure will remain with governments.

And in a way it's good that it is like that.

But I welcome, you know, I have to be honest, also sincere, transparent.

Last year we had what, 1.2 billion I think was the figure from private, private sector means companies, foundations and individuals through campaigns.

This year we're struggling to get there, of course, because last year the Ukraine impact was huge and emotionally on especially in Europe and other places.

So there was a lot generated by that.

But you see how this is more volatile.

So I think we can rely only up to a point.

But don't get me wrong, and I don't want me to quote saying that we don't need or want.

Those contributions are fantastic.

Please talk about them.

It's very, very important.

But I don't think they'll substitute states.

Basically, we're going to go online for three questions now.

So if we can have Granata and then Peter and Gunnila.

So Granata, the floor is yours.

Do I see them?

Hello, I wanted to ask Mr Gandhi about increasing talks of third countries being used to process asylum.

For example, the US sending potentially creating asylum centres or processing centres in Central America, the UK talking about Rwanda.

We have also Europe talking about third countries within Europe that they would potentially send asylum seekers there until their claims are processed.

What are UNHCRS views on this?

Is this legal?

Is this something that should be a solution or is this going, as you were saying, you know, towards the criminalization of of refugees and asylum seekers?

I think we need to be a bit careful not to conflate all these things because they're quite different.

But to answer your overall question, to have asylum seekers arrive on your territory and sending them to another country for adjudication.

There may be some exceptions, but by and large we would interpret this as denying access to asylum on your territory and so we would not agree.

This is why a clear cut case like that of Rwanda, we have taken a very clear position as you know that to take asylum seekers from the UK and sending them to Rwanda or by the way any other country for adjudication of that claim is, is not a good idea.

But there are exceptions to that but not in this particular case.

Now what you know the US case is more complex because we are worried and we have expressed it as well about denial of access to asylum in the US.

In some cases.

You may remember many different programmes that were put in place and we took exception to that.

What we are working on now and the US has communicated it and we too is slightly different.

You know, going upstream in these routes and seeing where, whether there are places where actually fast screening could be made on people moving so that you actually accelerate their access to the United States.

This is in a way another form of resettlement if you wish, according Now I, I, I'm sorry, this is a bit technical, but it's different from sending people back.

This is what we have actually been working on with the US in the past few weeks and we think it's actually positive.

So what we call legal pathways, increasing them, making them more fast, more efficient for more people is good.

As a matter of fact, the US actually told us they want to even go beyond simply creating these pathways for refugees, people that would be recognised as refugees, but looking at family reunification and looking at other legal pathways that may apply to their context, people coming from the region and having relatives, for example, in the US.

So there's a lot of positive going on in our discussion with the US administration at the moment.

It's a big priority for them.

But we keep telling them all of this cannot be at the expense of direct access to the territory of the US to seek asylum and to receive the benefit of the process.

Now whether you are then recognised or not is another matter, but to have access to the process.

So that is very, very important.

Otherwise, you know, you, you fall into what we call externalisation, the Rwanda case, which as you know, we have been quite vocal in pushing back.

There are other ways to deal with the type of flows that are reaching the UK.

Can we go to Peter and if you can, please identify the outlet that you're with Peter.

Yeah, thanks.

My name is Peter Kenny.

I'm from All African Global News.

Commissioner Grandi, can you hear me OK?

Yeah.

We cannot see you, but we can hear you.

OK, Well, I think when I put my picture on the IT collapsed.

The the image collapses.

So don't worry.

Carry on.

Yeah.

You spoke about the impact of the Sudan crisis on two states of China and and South Sudan.

How is it impacting impacting other surrounding states or the neighbouring states of Sudan?

And is there any signs of movement of people beyond Africa as a result of this present Sudan crisis?

Thank you.

I think all neighbours of Sudan are impacted.

The one that you know, the one the country that has received the most is Egypt.

I was there, as you know, two weeks ago I went to the border with Sudan.

Rather dramatic situation.

They have received well over 200,000 already.

Egypt has already, as you probably all know, a large Sudanese community, and that helps because that community has basically supported those arriving, and we're talking about millions of Sudanese there.

But Egypt has many security concern, which I discuss with the government.

I told them that I appreciated those security concerns, but that they had to continue to exercise humanity in their approach.

The restrictions the OR the regulations to enter are quite complex and this has created quite a backlog at the border with Egypt, inside Sudan.

But UNHCR is now operating also there in Northern Sudan to help the people that are moving on the way.

The other country of concern, I will mention three in particular is Chad.

Chad has received well over 120,000 Sudanese or people fleeing mostly from Darfur, plus another at least 20,000 Chadians that lived in Sudan and that have returned.

So we are maybe even over 150 now.

Sorry I don't have the latest, latest figures.

I am concerned for many reasons.

It's a very poor and remote area.

I was there last year before this war, very remote, very costly to operate there.

The rains have already started.

We are asked by the government reasonably to move these 100,000 people to existing camps.

Remember, there's already 400,000 Sudanese refugees from before in that area.

So incredibly difficult situation and with our means, it will be difficult to do it in time before the rains seriously come.

So we're looking at ways to do it.

And of course, you know, Chad is in the middle itself of a complicated political transition, a fragile transition.

It borders very complex countries like Central African Republic, like Libya, like the Lake Chad region.

So, you know, the arrival of a lot of people can be indeed quite destabilising if it's not handled properly.

And the third one I mentioned, but I want to mention it again, is South Sudan.

There are well over 100,000 people that have left Sudan for to go to flee to South Sudan.

Most of them are S Sudanese, they're not Sudanese.

These are people that were refugees in Sudan before.

There's about 800,000 of them and we're worried that more and more of these refugees will want to go back to their country.

We're worried why?

Because the country is not entirely prepared to take back without a proper planning.

We, we didn't know that so many of their own people in a country like you know, that is very, very fragile and divided.

So this may actually add or fuel further divisions.

So you see, you know, I a couple of weeks ago I was in New York, I was asked by the Security Council to brief them on the Sudanese refugee situation, not the rest, because the rest, they have more expert briefers.

And I told them just like that, I said, you're the Security Council, please worry about the humanitarian consequences, but please worry also about the security implication for the region and beyond of this outflow, because it's very, very tricky.

And finally, we don't have yet news about secondary movements, meaning Sudanese going to 1 country and then go beyond.

But can I tell you, and I told the Security Council and I told everybody, Eastern Sudan, I know very well that area.

I work there.

Eastern Sudan is unfortunately a hotbed of human trafficking.

It has been even in more normal times, you can just imagine with the complete breakdown of law and order in the country.

This is open terrain for traffickers.

So the risk is that of course they start dealing not only as they traditionally do with refugees from Ethiopia and from Eritrea, but they start dealing with Sudanese desperate people and, and entice them to move, you know, to Libya and further beyond.

There is a **** risk.

Now this is something that can only be stopped by restoring law and order and acting to try to limit that as was we tried to do or not we, the government tried to do before.

But without peace you cannot do that.

So that's the risk.

We have only 8 minutes left so I'm going to take 4 all together from the room.

Gentleman in the blue one, we can see this 53 take five.

OK, we'll take four.

And then Emma, can you wait until after?

Since you OK?

Hello and thank you for the briefing.

I'm Yuri abroad from Renovestia, Russian agency.

You were speaking about the fact that Ukrainian refugees into across Europe and were there and they met there.

I don't understand why UNHCR is never talking about that.

Millions of Ukrainians are in Russia as they left in Russia.

I was in Tahrir, I was in the rest of where a lot of Ukrainians are.

Nobody's telling this fact.

Even in your figures, there is more than 3,000,000 refugees in Russia.

The Russian authorities are speaking about 55 million refugees and nobody's staying.

Are you working with there?

Are you working with the Russian Federation in this case?

And why?

Nobody's speaking about this and speaking only about the refugees, Ukrainian refugees in Europe and not in Russia.

We always speak about Ukrainian refugees everywhere.

It is in the report, the figures that are there are the figures that we receive from the Russian authorities because we, we don't have an independent way of verifying those figures, but we put them as agreed, like we do for any other country in fact.

And of course we we speak when we work.

Our work in Russia is limited.

We have a small office and access is complex, let's say, to have, but we do have it at times and I have always spoken about it.

Laurent.

Yeah, Thank you.

Laurel Swiss News Agency.

A quick one on the consequences of the floodings in Novak, Kafka.

So did the floodings.

Yeah.

The dam after the destruction of the dam.

So we saw this pictures of people floating in, in the in the cities.

Do you have any indication of people that might have left Ukraine since that happened?

No, I don't have that information.

What we have is an information of a not a huge internally displaced internal displacement, but big enough thousands of people that have moved.

But what we have of course information because we are also there is 10s of thousands impacted where they are.

You know, people don't want to leave their homes and yet the homes are flooded.

I mean, you've seen all that.

So a real humanitarian tragedy.

We do our best to try and help.

This was you know not easy and sudden we had, we are using all our pre positioned items to distribute, you know, that's quite a division of labour between the agencies and we do our best to try and actually help, especially those people that don't want to move, which are the majority if I understand correctly.

But this has entailed in the last few days some very complex missions, risky missions.

You know, when we have the **** risk mission, I have to approve directly myself.

This is UN system and I don't know how many signatures I had to make in the last week for missions to go to the more dangerous areas.

Don't forget that some of the areas are on the front line, other areas are mined and therefore the mines, you've seen all that are out of their place.

So they're in another very **** hazard.

So big tragedy, but displacement is not the biggest feature here.

It's really the the needs of people that have been so catastrophically impacted by this horrible event.

Thank you.

The question about South America, there's an attempt to normalise, I'm sorry, shall we shout it from UOL Brazil?

My question is about Venezuela.

There's an attempt to normalise the situation of President Maduro.

He was invited to Brasilia, he's back, let's say, in the diplomatic scenario of the region, what do you expect from this normalisation and what would you send as a message to President Lula on this attempt of normalisation regarding obviously the situation of the refugees?

Thank you.

I have absolutely no political view on normalisation, although you're always trying me to say something political.

But but I think I I can say that dialogue I think is always good when you have a political crisis.

And I think your question I should be fair to you.

You added from the perspective of the refugees, very good.

I think that, look, there are many Venezuelans who have left the country.

They have been hosted very well, I can say, by all the neighbouring countries.

Brazil is one of the biggest recipient.

But of course, there are some who may want to return, I'm sure among them.

And the Venezuelan government always says that they should go back.

The question is like everywhere, like in Syria, like in Myanmar, you know, we're always going back to the same issue.

People say, oh, what does UNH share want?

It's not what UNH share want.

It's what the people want.

People want to gain trust that they go back and they're safe and maybe also that they can work, send the children to school.

So there is a more material aspect.

But otherwise, it's a matter of trust, security.

And that responsibility lies with the country of origin, in this case Venezuela.

So if this, you call it normalisation, it's your word, don't attribute it to me.

This dialogue, this renewed dialogue with many countries in the region and maybe beyond is successful.

If it can create more trust for the people to return, it's good.

But we need to get there, we need to see how it evolves.

So always good to have dialogue, I think, but but it is important from my perspective that one aspect of this dialogue is restoring the trust of the people who have left, not only from Venezuela, from other places as well.

We'll do 2 last ones, one from the room and then one from online.

Thank you, Madhuka from Nikkei.

My question would be really short.

If I'm not mistaken, I think you had a prediction that the displaced people in 2023 would be 117 million in your global appeal report.

So what would be your evaluation of the current situation now compared to that prediction and what would be your expectation for the second-half of the year?

Thank you.

Well, I can only hope that there is not another 7,000,000 coming.

Let's hope not.

I think that figure, I mean it I can say is a bit more complicated.

The figure in the global appeal.

I am here only to tell you about the situation now, but I think it's fair to say what's the prospect you want to know?

What's my prospect is that unfortunately Sudan is not over and more people will leave the country.

How many, I don't know.

I think that we have a planning figure of about a million people have in six months or so.

So we are now almost halfway through.

When we when we issued that figure of 1,000,000, I thought it was maybe too much and now I'm thinking maybe it's too little.

I don't know.

I don't I cannot speculate.

I hope that they will see some sense before, but so far we haven't seen that sense in the warring parties.

So unfortunately, until that is over, there will be more people and that will add to the figures in other places.

I don't see any massive repatriation happening anywhere.

So unfortunately, I fear that the figure is likely to increase more unless we see some good miracle happening somewhere by the way of peace.

But Tarek can explain to you later the 117, because this is a bit more complicated.

That's the that's a figure related to our global appeal, right?

Yeah, yeah.

So we'll take Gunilla and Gabriella from online, but if you can, please keep your questions very short, because we do.

The **** Commissioner does have to go.

So Gunilla and then Gabriella, please.

Yes.

Hi.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

I tried to put on my video, but it doesn't work.

Don't worry.

I'm sorry.

And Guney Laxingham, Swedish sounds get off guarded.

I have a question.

There was a lot of attention last week on a man in NC in France with her children and a very dramatic event.

And he was a Syrian refugee.

He had permanent residency in Sweden.

He also applied for asylum in Switzerland, in Italy, and also in France.

I I wanted to know if you think for how concerned you are that this will have an impact on public opinion on asylum seekers in Europe and perhaps especially in Sweden, that it's already hardened the asylum policy.

First of all, I want to say that that was a terrible event.

You know, it happened a few kilometres from where we are now.

It was a tragedy that somebody would attack children with a knife.

Terrible.

And I think French President and others, you know, said it all, it's horrible.

And maybe keeps should give us a bit of pause of reflection in which world we live in general.

I think what is a little bit, you know, you ask what is the impact?

Yeah, it can have an impact, but This is why it's important to say this is an isolated gesture, it seems to me, by a man that, you know, whose motives need to be explored.

I, I can't, I don't have any information about that.

There is an investigation that will go on and these motives, you know, will become more clear, whether it is personal health issues, mental issues or other issues.

So this, you know, time will tell.

I think what we need to avoid is to generalise, to say that this is, you know, because this person is a refugees and refugees **** children.

I why do I say this?

Because I know you will agree with me that one shouldn't say that because some people have said it.

You know, I have read the word francocide.

I don't know francocit.

I don't know if you can translate into English.

So killers of French.

This is hate speech and I hope nobody will use it.

Thank you, Cabriella.

You know, I am, I'm is Gabriela Sotomayor, Mexico Proceso.

I would like to ask you if you can talk about the situation of thousands of asylum seekers on the northern border of Mexico.

I would like to know if you spoke with the Mexican authorities.

There are thousands of people waiting for asylum to the United States, not only from Venezuela, Nicaragua, tea and Mexico, of course, but also from Russia, China, Ukraine, Africa.

Do you think at the end of the COVID health emergency could result in an exponential increasing moments towards that order?

Thank you so much Gracias Tantemile Gracias state.

Well, you know, Title 42 was lifted what, a month ago.

Yeah, I think it was the 11th of May.

We have not seen, may I say luckily a huge flow for the time being.

I think this is also in part due to some policies that are being put in place, some good, some a bit more of concern, but still this has been the effect.

I but this doesn't mean that the situation that you described is not dramatic.

There are a lot of people waiting there, often in very difficult circumstances, as you know, in northern Mexico.

This is also due to the slow progress of the US asylum system.

the US asylum system is the system that has the largest backlog of asylum seekers of anybody, hundreds of thousands of people.

So one point that I say this openly because it's a public discussion, we have always said to the US government, one of the things that needs to be done is reforming that asylum system so that it becomes more rapid, more efficient.

And we have made many suggestions.

And by the way, the US administration fully agrees with that.

We're trying to work on it very difficult because this entails mobilising resources and you know, mobilising resources in the US system is complex, the legislative process is complex, etcetera, etcetera.

But that's the question.

Because all the rest that I spoke about earlier, looking upstream at Mexico, at Central America, at even further upstream on the roots is useful, is important, but takes a bit more time to have an effect.

So, you know, I do agree with states that say, you know, borders are also in urgent matters and in this case particularly urgent because the plight of these people that are waiting is is not a good one.

And many of them are suffering.

You know, some of us are also in northern Mexico trying to help the people with humanitarian assistance.

But this cannot compensate the fact that they need to have access as soon as possible so that they can go into their process of of asylum.

You know, by the way, there are many good innovations.

I think the US government is has now established, it took a while and I think it's still teething problems, but an app that people can have on their phones to apply for asylum before they get there.

These are good things.

These are not bad things.

These are good improvements.

But I think it's the overall efficiency that needs to really make progress.

Thank you.

Thank you very much everyone.

You have fun one more, but it has to be super quick.

This is I'm Dina Abisab, RT and other Arabic media.

My question is about the Syrian refugees in Lebanon.

Lebanon is proposing now what is called a safe return to Syria with the coordination of the Syrian side.

What is the difference between this kind of returning and the voluntary returning to Syria or refugees to Syria?

And what's your position on this change?

Our position is the return has to be voluntary.

But, but let me say what I replied already on the Venezuelan is the same issue, You know, you all know that I met President Assad 2 months ago.

This was our topic of discussion.

He said the same.

He said people should come back very good.

I said you need to build trust.

It is true that the situation in Syria is very difficult from the humanitarian point of view.

This is also a country under sanctions.

So it's very difficult life there for ordinary people, including for those that may eventually return.

But I think that even more important than that is trust, trust, trust.

And I told the President Assad, if, you know, building the trust means what means that people need to be sure that they go back, they're safe, they're not.

There is no retaliation because they were away that they can go back to their homes.

You know, like in any big long time refugee situation, there are many property issues.

We're working on all these things.

But I told President Assad and I have been telling Syria for a long time, this is your responsibility.

I can help with mobilising resources, but your responsibilities to create those circumstances that generate the trust.

And if there is trust, then people decide to go back.

But if that trust is not there, it would be difficult to see numbers grow very much, whatever the initiative.

But I hope that with the present more, you know, broader engagement, we can really work on creating that trust, which is the only way that we can obtain return.

And by the way, I have great sympathy for the Lebanese plight because they are the ones that have hosted per capita the largest number of refugees, not only, as you know, not only Syrian, but Iraqis and then Palestinians in large numbers.

And they are also facing huge problems of their own.

So their plea is urgent, but we need to really work on this trust building.

Report on Forced Displacement in 2022 - UNHCR