UNHCR High Commissioner’s statement to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished delegates,

This is the tenth and final time that I address this Committee as High Commissioner for refugees.

Every year for the past 10 years I have come here to speak about the devastating impact of war, violence and persecution on millions forced to flee their homes.

Every year in this Committee I have described how, with your support, UNHCR responds to humanitarian emergencies, on the front lines, providing (with its partners) life-saving assistance to refugees: shelter, food, water; how it works to ensure that refugees and displaced people have access to safety; are documented; can use basic services; how it strives to give - whenever possible - a little hope to people that have lost everything.

And every year I have reported that the number of refugees and other forcibly displaced people has gone up. Every year except this one.

Because yes, for the first time in nearly a decade, this number has decreased. From 123 million at the end of 2024 to about 117 million today.

This may seem surprising. Because the world has not become safer - on the contrary. Conflicts - new and old - continue to rage: in Sudan, where we have witnessed shocking violence once again, but also recently in Gaza, in Ukraine, in Myanmar, and many other places.

How can we then explain this drop in displacement figures at a time of continued global instability?

Let me start by speaking of solutions to forced displacement. Or rather, of the possibility of solutions.

This unexpected decrease in the forced displacement figure is largely driven by the return of some refugees and internally displaced people to their places of origin. In many (but not all) cases, returns were voluntary, despite continued fragility in countries of return.

Because this is the nature of voluntariness: the decision to go back lies with the refugees themselves, based on an assessment of what is best for them. The voluntary nature of returns is an important distinction which statistics cannot always capture, as the decrease in the total number of forcibly displaced people also accounts unfortunately for returns that were not voluntary.

Let me focus therefore on the two situations that drove those statistics.

First, the return of displaced Syrians - which seemed impossible only a few months ago - illustrates very clearly the dynamic of voluntariness. Since 8 December 2024, more than 1.1 million refugees have returned to Syria from neighbouring countries. Approximately two million people displaced inside the country have also returned home. But whether they will stay in Syria will depend in large part on being safe (and we have seen how volatile the situation remains); and on having access to the basics - housing, jobs, electricity, clinics, schools, financial services -- barring which they may be compelled to move again.

To address this, Syria needs support - initially, of a humanitarian nature. That is why UNHCR's teams are on the ground, helping returnees with immediate needs - cash assistance, shelter rehabilitation, documentation and legal issues - working in support of central and local authorities.

But much more is needed. The international community, and especially donors in the Gulf region and Europe and the international financial institutions, must step up their support in building infrastructure, restoring services, reforming the security sector, and restarting the economy. That will give space and opportunities for all the people of Syria, under the leadership of their authorities, to rebuild their country; and for more refugees to return, and for those who do, to stay. It will also help relieve pressure on those countries in the region - Lebanon, Jordan, Türkiye, Egypt and Iraq - that have generously hosted Syrian refugees for years.

This same opportunity exists in other parts of the world - in Burundi or in the Central African Republic to name but two. With additional humanitarian funds, and with development investments in areas of return, UNHCR's work can contribute directly to global security and regional stability. This is why I am particularly grateful to the United States for having helped recognize our unique mandate and role in the context of the recent Peace Agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda - a potential breakthrough in a decades-long conflict. As stipulated in the 2010 Tripartite Agreement, UNHCR is ready to play its role in consolidating peace, and opening the door for the voluntary, safe and dignified return of - potentially - millions of refugees and displaced people to their homes.

These developments show that with political engagement more opportunities for solutions can be created, including in places like Myanmar or Sudan, to address the root causes that continue to prolong humanitarian and refugee crises. This is an important message here in New York, where - a few steps from here, in the Security Council - we continue to see tensions and divisions blocking pathways to peace.

The situation of Afghans, and in particular those forced back to Afghanistan, mainly from Iran and Pakistan, has been the other driver of lower displacement numbers. Let me be clear. For decades, Pakistan and Iran have been generous hosts to Afghan refugees, and they continue to be for many of them. Afghans in both countries are provided access to services practically on par with nationals. Indeed, generations of Afghans -- women especially - were educated in Iranian and Pakistani schools. We cannot forget that.

But the recent waves of forced returns to Afghanistan deny many Afghan refugees the protection they need, forcing them back to an environment where human rights violations and discrimination are widespread -- especially against women. Worse, we know from experience that forced returns are ultimately counterproductive. That they only serve to exacerbate instability.

It is positive that the Iranian and Pakistani governments, and the de facto authorities in Afghanistan, have agreed to discuss these matters within the quadripartite framework, and I hope a meeting can take place next month as proposed. It may well be that a new paradigm is needed in the region to better reflect the changing composition of Afghan population flows. One that ensures that Afghan refugees continue to receive the protection they need, while creating more space to regulate migratory routes for others. UNHCR, with its partners, stands ready to support this important discussion.

Mr. Chairman,

By its very definition, forced displacement is dynamic. It is a complex phenomenon - people may flee a country at the same time as others return to it. This is the reality today in South Sudan for example, or even in Sudan.

Population flows and displacement patterns are constantly evolving in response to a multitude of factors - war and violence certainly, but also the effects of climate change, poverty, economic opportunities, and so on. As a result, mixed population flows, consisting of both refugees and migrants, have grown. From a legal point of view, they belong to distinct categories. Refugees are forced to flee; migrants leave for other reasons. In practice, they often move alongside each other, along transnational routes that span large geographic areas. Through the Sahara; across the Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Andaman Sea; in Latin America or towards Southern Africa.

I have spoken extensively about this phenomenon, so I will not elaborate on this issue in detail. UNHCR fully recognizes that responding to mixed movements is a complex challenge. We know that asylum systems can become overwhelmed and can be misused by people who do not need international protection - to the detriment of refugees, for whom asylum is lifesaving. And we agree: it is imperative that the integrity and the efficacy of asylum systems be maintained. We can help you with that.

But the solution does not lie in restrictions, barriers and pushbacks - practices that breach international obligations and endanger people who have no choice but to flee.

To be clear: legal measures that strengthen borders are absolutely legitimate. In fact, they are necessary. But such control and deterrence measures are not sufficient as - alone - they do not solve the problem.

Instead, it is more strategic to look at entire displacement routes and identify measures that provide protection and opportunities to people on the move, and their hosts, as early as possible - before people cross several borders. That is the essence of the 'route-based' approach that UNHCR, together with the International Organization for Migration and others, has been advocating in recent years. Such measures include strengthening asylum systems, developing mechanisms for lawful transfers of asylum seekers to safe third countries, or indeed - for those individuals who do not need protection -- setting up return programmes. They also include creating predictable and regulated migration pathways - for labour, education or family reunification.

Here again, l encourage you to consult with us. We have issued extensive technical guidance on these issues, so that responses can be both effective and lawful.

This brings me to my next point.

There has been a push recently - partly as a reaction to these challenges - to question the continued relevance of the international legal framework that governs asylum.

Under the guise of effectiveness, or based on arguments that asylum undermines national sovereignty, some have even called for the 1951 Refugee Convention to be replaced by a new instrument. These arguments are misguided. Let me explain why.

To begin with, we should keep in mind that the fundamental principles of asylum are timeless and universal. People who flee persecution and violence should be welcomed and protected, not turned away or left to die. I hope we can all agree on that. This is the principle of non-refoulement that is at the heart of the 1951 Convention and clearly established as a norm under international customary law. And the Convention is the instrument which has guided States in codifying these long-standing norms. As such, it is a direct expression of State sovereignty. This is a critical point.

But asylum is not a backdoor for migration. Quite the opposite, States have the duty to manage their borders. We all agree on that too. The modern institution of asylum - rooted in the Refugee Convention - is the tool that enables States to meet both obligations. To their citizens and to refugees.

To question the effectiveness of the current framework is also to view it selectively, from too narrow a perspective - as if all refugees were moving to Europe or North America. That is quite the opposite. Every day, because asylum is upheld in Chad, for example, the lives of thousands of Sudanese refugees are saved. Refugees' lives have been saved in Moldova, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Costa Rica and many other places thanks to the institution we all built together. What could be more effective at a time when military might is replacing diplomacy and dialogue as a means of resolving conflict?

Finally, it is important to note that the current international framework has evolved over time, even as fundamental principles, and the Refugee Convention itself, have remained unchanged. That is the challenge: stay true to principles but find innovative ways to apply them. Numerous legal instruments have been developed by States, to operationalize these principles and account for regional specificities, such as the Pact on Asylum and Migration adopted by the European Union.

And the Global Compact on Refugees, which the General Assembly - you - affirmed in 2018, continues to be a critical toolbox that States can draw on when responding to today's displacement crises, including those which extreme climate events create, aggravate and accelerate, as will be discussed among other challenges at the ongoing COP30 in Belém.

Mr. Chairman,

A further point on which I would like to reflect relates to the nature of humanitarian responses. Creating standalone humanitarian infrastructure is no longer an option. It is imperative that humanitarian responses follow a more sustainable model, especially as funding has become unpredictable.

A number of refugee-hosting countries - Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, Jordan, Türkiye and many others - have affirmed that. They have recognized that only through the inclusion of refugees into existing structures - at the national and local level - can responses to displacement be sustainable. This means investing in self-reliance. It means giving refugees and displaced people access to education, services, financing, work. So, they can contribute better to host communities, in a more cohesive context. That is a living example of the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.

To bear fruit, this process requires both time and resources. It does not happen overnight, especially as the shift to inclusion and sustainability needs to reflect local specificities, constraints and priorities - which is why national governments must lead it, and why UNHCR, partners and donors must continue to support it. As I have repeated for 10 years, responsibility towards refugees cannot be borne by host countries alone - it must remain shared, including financially.

I am proud that, over the last decade, we have mobilized significant expertise and financing in support of such efforts. Many bilateral development agencies have been strong partners, as have international financial institutions. The partnership with the World Bank has been particularly successful, resulting in $5.5 billion allocated directly to low-income refugee-hosting countries through the IDA Window for Host Communities and Refugees. Middle-income host countries have had access to financing through the Global Concessional Financing Facility (GCFF) - a critical programme that has also been impactful for refugees and beneficiary countries. It is positive - although the decision must be formalized - that a political agreement was reached in Yerevan a few days ago on extending the GCFF for another five years.

Mr. Chairman,

Before I conclude, I must address the impact on UNHCR, and on the humanitarian sector as a whole, of this year's drastic and sudden reductions in financing.

We project that we will end the year with $1.3 billion less in funds available than we did in 2024 - a 25% decrease - and a collapse of unearmarked contributions. We also project that we will receive less than $4 billion this year, out of a budget of $10.6 billion. The last time we received less than $4 billion was in 2015, when the number of forcibly displaced people was half of what it is today.

We did what we could to absorb these reductions internally, in the hope of minimizing the impact on refugees and host countries. We reduced the size of our workforce by 30% -- affecting close to 5,000 colleagues - and aggressively cut spending. We shrank our operational footprint globally, consolidating or reducing our presence in 185 locations.

Still, faced with such wide-ranging reductions, we had no choice but to cut lifesaving and life-changing activities. Across all sectors. With such wide-ranging reductions, and such little time, nothing could be spared.

Some are saying that these reductions were overdue. That they are an opportunity for UNHCR to become more efficient, to return to our "core mandate" -- implying that we had until now somehow been inefficient, or unfocused. I couldn't disagree more. These cuts will make it more difficult to save lives; to deliver on our mandate.

This is why I appeal to all those who can help us bridge the gap before the end of the year and to make early, flexible pledges for 2026.

Of course, we will cope. By reprioritizing our activities yet again, and by redoubling our efforts to make the organization more efficient -- building on a decade of transformation and modernization, and in a manner that complements United Nations system-wide reform efforts, including the Humanitarian Reset, and the Secretary-General's UN80 initiative, to both of which we are active contributors and participants.

Mr. Chairman,

Distinguished delegates,

After 10 challenging yet fascinating years, my mandate comes to an end in a few weeks and so, today, I take leave of you, with many thanks for your support.

It has been an enormous privilege to hold this responsibility - the highlight of a humanitarian path which started in your country, Mr. Chairman, almost 42 years ago, at the Thai-Cambodian border. The last institutional milestone under my watch will be the Progress Review of the Global Refugee Forum in just over a month.

This will coincide with UNHCR's 75th anniversary. I cannot think of a more fitting way to end my tenure than such a clear reminder that we have been with refugees, displaced people, stateless people, and those hosting them for such a long time, through thick and thin, in good and bad times, but also that our job is not done, yet; and that this organization, of which I am very, very proud, will endure, until it is no longer needed.

Thank you.