High Commissioner’s Opening Statement to the seventy-sixth plenary session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme

(As delivered)

Mr. Chairman, Señor Presidente,

Distinguished Delegates,

Dear colleagues,

Please rest assured: although this is the last time for me to address this Committee as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this will not be a farewell speech. Not yet. There will be time for that.

Instead, I would like to share a few reflections, not only on the last year - which has been very challenging - but also drawing on the developments of the last decade, to trace what has been the organization's trajectory, and to map what its future might hold.

In October 2015, exactly ten years ago, the Syrian refugee crisis was at its peak. The defining image of that time was that of little Alan Kurdi's body lying lifeless on a beach. It was impossible then to imagine that, just over ten days ago, we would have reached the milestone of the one millionth Syrian refugee return.

During the same time, arguably because of the Syrian refugee crisis - particularly but not only in Europe - we have witnessed a growing backlash - manipulated and politicized, but no less real - against refugees, migrants, sometimes even foreigners.

To understand the state of asylum today - and I include the recent cuts in foreign aid budgets - it is important to place it within a significant dynamic of the last decade - the general disillusionment of people with the institutions that are meant to represent them.

There is a growing sense that new, simpler narratives are required to help explain our difficult and unstable world. This has implied setting aside approaches seen as no longer able to address the complex issues facing States and societies - approaches such as cooperation and compromise.

The very idea of multilateralism has therefore come under attack. The arguments themselves are not new: multilateralism is decried as bloated and inefficient. It is an infringement on State sovereignty. A relic of a past that no longer exists - all this despite the fact that multilateral institutions, despite their imperfections, have served to advance the interests of both powerful and less powerful countries. But we can all see how the pendulum of State behaviour has swung away from cooperation toward a transactional kind of politics. We can see how power, and the belief that might makes right, is not only driving geopolitical decision-making but also and especially the manner in which wars are fought - within and between States.

The atrocities perpetrated in Gaza and the West Bank, in Ukraine, Sudan or Myanmar are evidence of the deliberate abandonment of norms in the name of violent power, conducted with complete impunity by States and non-State entities alike. People killed while waiting in line to receive food. Civilians massacred in camps where they fled for safety. Hospitals and schools destroyed. A record number of aid workers killed.

Parties to conflict do not even pretend anymore to abide by international humanitarian law, or by any set of rules. Instead, war and indiscriminate violence are portrayed as justifiable so long as military means are achieved - and norms be damned. No human cost is too high, no image of death or destruction too shocking. Let there be no mistake: the daily repetition of atrocities is intended to numb our conscience. To make us feel powerless.

But we are not. Our power is to maintain moral clarity and reaffirm fundamental humanitarian values - protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure, ensuring access to affected populations, securing the unimpeded provision of humanitarian aid. But we also have a duty to address the consequences of this violence. Forced displacement is one. And that is why UNHCR exists: to protect refugees and find solutions to their plight. That is our mission. The mandate you gave us 75 years ago, still very relevant today. Perhaps more relevant than ever before.

Mr. Chairman,

The list of major emergencies of the last 10 years is long and familiar - I mentioned Syria already, to which we must add Myanmar, South Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ukraine and Sudan, to name just a few ongoing ones. In Latin America and the Caribbean, complex crises give rise to complex displacement - of Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Haitians and others. Conflicts, aggravated by climate change and other factors, have generated protracted displacement situations in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa.

Since 2015, the number of people forced to flee their homes because of war and persecution has virtually doubled, reaching 122 million. Forced displacement - human mobility in general - has also grown in speed and complexity.

The flight from Ukraine in 2022, following the full-scale Russian invasion, was the fastest large-scale displacement since World War Two, with millions seeking safety across borders or in safer parts of Ukraine in a few weeks. In Sudan, the shifting front lines of a vicious conflict between forces vying for supremacy at the expense of their own people - coupled with the multiple armed factions operating outside centralized command structures - have exacted an enormous toll and resulted in a patchwork of refugee movements, both within and outside the country. And similar dynamics exist in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, in the Sahel and many other places.

Then there is the issue of mixed population flows, with refugees - people who are forced to flee their country - and migrants - who move mostly for economic reasons - travelling alongside each other, along the same routes: to Southern Africa, across the Mediterranean, through the Balkans or across the Darien jungle, to name just a few. And while the normative distinction between refugees and migrants is clear, with distinct regulatory frameworks applying to each, in practice, mixed movements have proven to be difficult to address effectively.

Faced with overwhelmed asylum systems, as well as intense domestic pressures, countries routinely resort to measures aimed first and foremost at stopping these flows. They adopt rhetoric and policies focused on hardening borders or dismantling the criminal networks that prey on the desperation of people on the move: legitimate, necessary measures, which, however, often prove insufficient - and this is when calls to fundamentally reform or even scrap the current asylum systems and the 1951 Refugee Convention grow louder.

Mr. Chairman,

In recent months, this narrative has once again gained traction. And as I have repeatedly said, UNHCR fully appreciates the real challenges posed by mixed population flows. We will always stand ready to support all countries in finding realistic and principled solutions.

But allow me to reiterate a few fundamental points.

First - and we should be absolutely clear - the problem at hand is not one of principles.

The right to seek asylum was not invented 75 years ago. The moral obligation to provide refuge to those fleeing danger is enshrined in sacred texts across the world. Precisely because asylum is life-saving. That is what has happened in recent years in Uganda, Chad, Moldova or Bangladesh. These and other countries, by upholding asylum, have saved lives.

The modern expression of those principles is what States have codified in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its subsequent Protocol - in addition to several regional instruments, including the OAU Refugee Convention, the Cartagena Declaration or the Common European Asylum System.

All these instruments were negotiated by States. They are not contrary to sovereignty. They are, in fact, instruments of State sovereignty. Without question, States have the right - the obligation, in fact - to control their borders. The current asylum system is predicated on that. But States also have a shared responsibility to protect those fleeing for their lives. Sovereignty and the right to seek asylum are not incompatible. They are complementary. Asylum is not and never has been a vehicle for indiscriminate open-border advocacy.

Here I want to be clear. In an environment where everything is highly politicized, putting the Refugee Convention and the principle of asylum on the table would be a catastrophic error. It would lead us down blind alleys and, ultimately, it would make the problem more difficult to address.

Beware, please, the easy fix!

And let me repeat something you have heard me say before, but is important in the context of this debate: the majority of the world's refugees are not hosted in Europe, or in North America. Three-quarters are in low- or middle-income countries. Any effort to reform the current system, let alone rebuild it, must - in addition to keeping the protection of refugees front and center - take into account the reality of all States, especially those who have been the most generous hosts and often have scarce resources. Otherwise, we can only conclude that pressures to reform asylum are not made in good faith but represent yet another attack on international solidarity, at a time when many countries continue to welcome refugees.

Mr. Chairman,

The challenge in front of us is one of implementation, not of principles. It is operational, not normative. The real question is how we apply existing principles to contexts that keep evolving. What practical solutions are available that can help us respond to today's forced displacement challenges - and not just in mixed movements, but also in protracted refugee situations, or in situations of internal displacement? And in each one of these contexts, there has been an evolution in how current principles have been implemented to offer more policy and operational options. The affirmation of complementary refugee and migration Global Compacts by the United Nations in 2018 was a milestone in this regard. The compacts are toolboxes containing many key suggestions - even answers - to the demands for reform that we hear today.

That has also been the case in respect of internal displacement, from the Guiding Principles issued 30 years ago, to the Secretary-General's recent Action Agenda on Internal Displacement, focusing on solutions.

In this context, UNHCR has issued detailed guidance and papers on different aspects of asylum management in situations of mixed population movements. They address, in very practical terms, critical issues that many countries grapple with - such as how to simplify and speed up adjudication procedures; or how to develop and implement international agreements so that refugees and asylum-seekers can be transferred to a third country in a manner that is consistent with refugee law and international responsibility-sharing principles.

I want to also stress one key point: the international asylum framework is intended for people who flee war, violence, discrimination and persecution, and who need protection. This means that, by definition, those who do not fall within that category can be returned to their countries, or, subject to mutual agreements, to other countries - in a dignified manner, of course. We have recently issued concrete guidance on this specific point - providing policy options for setting up effective return systems for individuals who do not have international protection needs, including the use of return hubs.

Let me add that all this work is not academic but drawn from experience, both yours and ours, including, for instance, the remarkable progress achieved in strengthening asylum systems in the Americas - in Brazil, Mexico or Costa Rica. Or the agreement recently reached between France and the United Kingdom that shows that States can cooperate on lawful transfers to address mixed and onward movements.

I am worried that the current debate - in Europe, for example - and some current deportation practices - such as in the United States - address real challenges in manners not consistent with international law. So, my plea to you is: when you decide to explore such arrangements, consult with us. Engage us. As we will hear later from the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, UNHCR is here to advise and support you so that any measures you choose remain lawful.

In recent years, in response to these mixed movements, UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration have been jointly advocating with States to look at a suite of options - the ones I just mentioned on strengthening asylum systems, returns and readmission, but also others, including resettlement, labour mobility, education pathways and so on. We have used the term 'route-based approach' to describe this set of options.

The underlying idea behind the route-based approach is simple: do not wait until people have already crossed many borders to react. By then - when the debate has become politicized - it is very difficult to be effective. Instead, look upstream, at entire displacement routes, and find ways to stabilize population movements before they become even more complicated to address, and risky for those on the move. In so doing, invest not only in controls, but also in opportunities. Help provide refugees with protection and support, and others with regular migratory routes.

We are talking about practical solutions. Look at the Temporary Protection Status that Colombia approved for displaced Venezuelans in 2021 - one of the most groundbreaking and courageous decisions the region has seen in decades. It benefited nearly two million people on the move, giving them a lifeline in Colombia, and though it did not eliminate it, it surely reduced migratory pressures on countries downstream. This is the type of stabilizing initiative which requires international support.

Mr. Chairman,

Let me now touch briefly on protracted refugee displacement. UNHCR has recognized early - well before this year's financial crisis - that humanitarian financing alone has become unsustainable. With the acceleration of new humanitarian emergencies, it is clear that neither attention nor resources can be sustained long enough to meet the needs of millions who have been displaced for years, sometimes generations. We must reimagine what a sustainable humanitarian response to displacement should look like.

As a result, in the last few years, there has been a deliberate move away from pure humanitarian responses toward more sustainable models, centered around refugee self-reliance and support to host communities.

It is no longer tenable to perpetuate a system that treats displaced people and their hosts differently; that excludes one group at the expense of another; that maintains inefficient and unsustainable parallel systems. Working closely with some host governments, we have shifted our attention to strengthening existing structures and capacities - local schools, local clinics - so they can benefit refugees and hosts alike. With better inclusion, refugees can then, in turn, become contributors, until they can return home safely, but leaving behind investments that will continue to benefit host communities.

The success of that approach remains contingent, however, on everyone holding their end of the bargain. Host countries, UNHCR and its partners and donors.

Inclusion does not work if policies in host countries isolate refugees or cut them off from opportunities. Instead, by opening up access to services and jobs, by lifting restrictions on freedom of movement, by investing in the potential of refugees, host countries generate economic and social dividends, both for themselves and for refugees. That has been the experience, for example, in Brazil, with the interiorization policy. Or in Uganda, which for years has been at the forefront of this approach. Iran and Pakistan have long provided Afghan refugees access to health and education. Studies have shown that refugees have contributed to economic growth, from Poland to Mexico. Kenya this year officially launched the Shirika Plan. Ethiopia has the Makatet Roadmap. The list is long. Inclusion and self-reliance are the way of the future. But the transition toward inclusion must be adapted to local contexts - it cannot be a "one size fits all" approach. The process is one that must remain government-led and nationally owned, supported by UNHCR and others.

That has meant that we've had to change in the last 10 years and grow beyond our traditional expertise. We had to engage more directly with a wider range of government ministries, like finance or planning. And we have forged new partnerships.

And these partnerships, especially those with international financial institutions - the World Bank, the regional development banks, the International Monetary Fund - have been transformational. Certainly, for our own analytical capacity; we created dedicated teams within UNHCR to grow our institutional development expertise. We also established the World Bank-UNHCR Joint Data Center in 2019. I am especially proud of these achievements during my tenure.

Inclusion, however, has high costs - material and political. For this reason, it must be underpinned by donor resources - refugees are a shared responsibility. Our partnership with international financial institutions enabled us to mobilize expertise and resources for all of you - much of it non-transactional, meaning it did not go through UNHCR. In the last decade, the World Bank alone has provided $5.5 billion directly to low-income refugee-hosting countries through its Window for Host Communities and Refugees. For middle-income countries, financing was made available through the Global Concessional Financing Facility. Many of your development institutions - BMZ, the Agence Française de Développement, the Netherlands through the PROSPECTS partnership, and Denmark through several private/public initiatives, JICA and others - have also been strong supporters.

The potential is enormous, and has drawn the private sector in, through the International Finance Corporation and countless companies and foundations. I do want to single out this year the Mastercard Foundation for its extraordinary commitment of $300 million over the next five years.

Of course, the road has not been entirely smooth. The development business model operates on a much slower and more cautious timescale than the humanitarian. Bridging this divide and having development actors become more capable to embrace risk and engage in fragile contexts is the challenge going forward. Through our Sustainable Responses initiative, led by the Assistant High Commissioner for Operations, we will continue to play our part.

But the situation is becoming more complex.

Mr. Chairman,

Within the overall arc of transformation I just described, I want to address how incredibly damaging this year's funding cuts have been. And I will be blunt.

I don't think this is simply a financial crisis. What we are facing - what has been imposed on the international aid system, including on yourselves by the way - are political choices with disastrous financial implications.

That said, we must contend with the harsh reality of the numbers. And the numbers are bleak.

Our budget for 2025, approved by you, amounted to $10.6 billion, similar to previous years. For the last few years, we received approximately half of our budgetary requirements, or roughly $5 billion a year. After the spike in contributions due to the Ukraine crisis, anticipating a reduction, we went through an adjustment in 2024 when we reduced about 1,000 staff positions and froze some activities.

In 2025, we foresaw strong financial headwinds and projected a further 10 per cent decrease in expected contributions compared to 2024.

The situation turned out to be significantly worse.

As things stand, we project that we will end 2025 with $3.9 billion in funds available, a decrease of $1.3 billion compared to 2024 - or roughly 25 per cent less. And the year is not over. The last time we had less than $4 billion was in 2015, when the number of forcibly displaced people was half of what it is today.

What is worse is that, because we cannot move tightly earmarked funds to where they are most needed, there is currently a risk of mismatch between our current financial commitments and funds available. This mismatch is estimated at more than $300 million currently. Of course, we are doing everything we can to address it. We continue to monitor our expenditures very closely. We have imposed very strict controls, including pausing or cancelling commitments. But we have fixed costs that we cannot avoid.

This situation may not only force us into further cuts to programmes, affecting refugees and host countries, but could also set us up for a very difficult start to 2026, since we would have no funds carried over, and no cash available to cover commitments at the start of the year. So, I must make two urgent appeals: one is for your support in providing us with an urgent injection of at least $300 million in flexible resources by year end, to minimize the risk of a deficit. Two - a plea I make every year, but that is more important than ever - please pledge and disburse funds for 2026 as early as possible.

Mr. Chairman,

As you are aware, our budget for next year is in the amount of $8.5 billion - still reflecting needs, but with a realistic appreciation of decreasing resources. There are too many unknowns to predict precisely 2026 contributions, but should current downward funding trends continue, the organization may be forced to make further reductions, at least in some situations.

I can assure you that we are responding and preparing by ensuring maximum effectiveness in all areas of our work, but this cannot hide the fact that the impact of cuts has been devastating. No country, no sector, no partner has been spared. Critical programmes and life-saving activities had to be stopped. Gender-based violence prevention work - stopped. Psychosocial support to survivors of torture - stopped. Schools were closed. Food assistance decreased. Cash grants cut. Resettlement ground to a halt. Funds to help reduce statelessness further reduced. I could go on and on. This is what happens when you slash funding by over a billion dollars in a matter of weeks.

And then - with all due respect - we are constantly asked to explain the strategic rationale behind our reductions. Believe me, it is not easy to be strategic when faced with cuts imposed on us in the most unstrategic manner I have observed in my long career.

But we are being as strategic as possible. We did not eliminate activities randomly. We consulted partners. We consulted you - especially at country level. We set parameters to help us stay rigorous. Prioritize the field. Safeguard key capacities in protection, emergency response, and the quest for solutions. Try to minimize the toll on refugees and on host countries. But we knew - and we warned you - that such deep and quick cuts in aid would exact a very heavy price. And they did.

Including on our presence globally. Our headquarters capacity has shrunk. We closed our regional bureau in Southern Africa. In total, we had to downscale or modify our presence in 185 offices. Although we have tried to mitigate the impact by embedding UNHCR staff within broader UN structures or by increasing our reliance on multi-country offices, we will be able to do less, when more is needed from us.

Because we have been warning for months that, by putting pressure on refugees, on refugee-hosting countries, and on the humanitarian system all at once, you risk creating a domino effect of instability. To worsen the very displacement we are all working to resolve.

This year, I have travelled to virtually every major humanitarian situation where UNHCR plays a role. Ukraine, Moldova, Syria, Türkiye, Jordan, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Kenya, Chad, Mexico, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Myanmar. I have a few more visits planned before the end of the year.

I did that intentionally. I wanted to see firsthand the impact of the funding cuts. I also wanted to discuss with governments ways UNHCR could continue to support.

And I wanted to speak to my colleagues. To be with them at this difficult time.

Almost 5,000 UNHCR colleagues have already lost their jobs this year. This is more than a quarter of our entire workforce. And with more separations foreseen, that number is expected to grow.

I don't need to tell you how painful this has been. For our affected colleagues, first and foremost, whose lives have been upended. Many had worked with the organization for years. Some supported entire family networks in places where jobs are scarce. Others served in remote locations, often in very harsh conditions, away from their loved ones. All - including people you know, I am sure - had dedicated their professional lives to refugees. For them, working with UNHCR was more than a job. It was a way of life.

And while we remain committed to identifying solutions and finding opportunities to re-employ them where possible, it is clear that future opportunities will be limited; work in the aid sector as a whole will be more insecure. Which will make it difficult to retain the talent of today and attract the humanitarian leaders of tomorrow.

It will take time for the organization to rebuild the same depth of expertise and the trust and morale for those who remain.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that it will.

UNHCR will recover and emerge from this difficult period - we will be smaller, but we will remain strong.

Remember, we invested very heavily in transforming UNHCR over the last decade. We had recognized - well before this funding crisis - that we needed to adapt structures and systems to today's realities by becoming more modern, more efficient - and I want to acknowledge the Deputy High Commissioner for her role in leading that change.

This crisis has shown us that more work remains, especially if the organization is to withstand future systemic shocks in a more flexible manner. This is where our internal change efforts intersect with system-wide reforms, and specifically with the Humanitarian Reset, which, as you know, is led by the Emergency Relief Coordinator, and with the UN80 Initiative led by the Secretary-General. We have contributed to, and are actively involved, in both initiatives.

The Humanitarian Reset is a very ambitious proposal - which we welcome. We will support streamlining the system put in place 20 years ago, which has been effective but has grown disproportionately, creating unnecessary bureaucracy: this is why we support the simplification of clusters and humanitarian appeals, including the streamlining of coordination structures - the cluster model and the refugee coordination model - wherever circumstances permit. With stronger leadership by humanitarian coordinators. There is also a renewed commitment to working with local organizations - something many of us are already doing. We are working closely with OCHA and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee on all these aspects. The next step will be to deliver a roadmap for implementing these changes.

On UN80, the recent report of the Secretary-General includes, as you know, a humanitarian pillar, with six workstreams forming a "Humanitarian Compact". In this case also, the ultimate objective is to increase the efficiency, speed and impact of the UN humanitarian system. Let me highlight two of the tracks where we have been most involved.

First, scaling up common services between agencies. Concretely, this means looking at so-called "enabling" functions and processes - supply, telecommunications, shared premises, shared fleet services and the like - where costs can be reduced. We have contributed substantially to that effort, drawing from the work being done within UNHCR on bringing together transactional functions under Global Shared Services.

Another important track within the Humanitarian Compact is on programmatic effectiveness - meaning how we work with other agencies, especially where responsibilities intersect, as is the case, for us, with IOM.

The IOM Director-General and I are looking at possible areas to step up joint work: the Afghanistan situation, for example, where addressing population movements through a more diverse prism - one that takes into account both refugee movements and economic migratory patterns - could offer better solutions to countries in the region and people on the move than the current, very damaging wave of forced returns from Iran and Pakistan; and in other situations, like North Africa, where UNHCR and IOM can work more closely together, as we have done in Latin America with the joint response to Venezuelan population movements.

Mr. Chairman,

There is one more point I want to share in this last ExCom opening speech of mine. A point drawn from my experience.

The forces that shape displacement are not static. They change unexpectedly. And sometimes, yes, they change for the better.

I started by mentioning Syria. A country ravaged by 14 years of civil war. A country whose population bears the scars of loss and displacement at a scale rarely seen. At the peak of the crisis, close to half of all Syrians were forcibly displaced. Millions found refuge outside Syria, mainly in Lebanon, Türkiye, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. Countries that continued to host refugees year after year, even after donor fatigue crept in and domestic pressures scaled up. But their commitment to hosting Syrian refugees made it possible for them, for the refugees, to keep dreaming of home.

And today, that dream has come true for over 1 million Syrian refugees. Now Syrian returnees, they carry with them hope and expectations. They expect homes to sleep in. Electricity so they can work. Schools for their children. Jobs to earn a living. And most of all, they expect, and deserve, to feel safe again. Inside their country. But Mr. Chaiman, we have to make their returns sustainable or risk seeing another wave of displacement out of Syria. Without faster and bolder investments, it may happen again.

UNHCR never left Syria during the war. We were on the ground then, we are on the ground now. Accompanying people back to their communities. Rehabilitating houses. Helping with transportation and cash. We could do much more, but we need your support. This is an opportunity to close one of the largest displacement situations in the world. Do not let it go to waste.

A similar glimmer of hope recently flickered in the conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. Until a few weeks ago, the situation seemed destined to remain stuck in an endless cycle of violence and distrust. And yet today, thanks to peace efforts spearheaded by the United States, instead of speaking only of more bloodshed, of more refugees, we can start to think -- cautiously but a little bit more optimistically - of stability and returns.

As I recently told President Kagame and President Tshisekedi, UNHCR is ready to continue working with the governments of the region to ensure that displaced populations can return to their homes safely, voluntarily, and in dignity - as stipulated in the 2010 Tripartite Agreements, and as recognized in the recent Peace Agreement and the Doha Declaration of Principles. There too, we are ready to play our part in entrenching peace.

And that ultimately is the lesson to draw. That we cannot be resigned to conflict, even when it appears to be inevitable.

We must remain engaged. That is the value of humanitarian diplomacy. To chip away at conflict - one meal at a time, one family at a time, one refugee at a time. One of the greatest privileges to work with UNHCR is to straddle the boundaries between aid and diplomacy. To help refugees and, in so doing, help open doors to peace when peace seems impossible.

This is why we can say that peace - against all odds - is possible in more situations than we sometimes imagine.

It is possible in Myanmar, where we must remain engaged with all parties - the de facto authorities, the Arakan Army, countries in the region and beyond, and with displaced communities - to help create conditions that will eventually allow Rohingya refugees to return to their homes from Bangladesh and elsewhere.

It is possible in Western Sahara - a situation that has lasted 50 years, and where we have also remained engaged. UNHCR will continue supporting Sahrawi refugees for as long as it takes. But the time has come for all parties to recommit to peace, to finally bring this crisis to a long-overdue resolution.

And we must believe and pray that current efforts to make peace can take hold also in Gaza, and that the unspeakable horrors of that war finally come to an end.

Mr. Chairman,

Distinguished Delegates,

Colleagues,

In closing, I would like to thank you all once again for your support. We will have the opportunity to reconvene before the end of the year, at the Global Refugee Forum Progress Review meeting on 15 December. Exactly seventy-five years and one day after UNHCR was founded.

Meanwhile, thanks to our donors, public and private, and especially those who have made a special effort to increase their contributions - the European Commission, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the African Development Bank. Thanks also to Sweden, Norway, and España con ACNUR - our top donors of unearmarked funding.

Special thanks to refugee-hosting countries for shouldering the heavy responsibility that has been placed on you. You have been the biggest advocates for refugees. I have tried to be your biggest advocate.

Sincere thanks to our partners - United Nations agencies, international financial institutions, civil society organizations, including those led by refugees. You remain indispensable in our efforts to support people in flight.

And finally, to refugees, displaced and stateless people - thank you all. Your grace, courage and determination to keep hoping, in the face of pain and tragedy, continue to drive this organization forward every day.

Thank you for giving me strength and inspiration for more than 40 years.

This certainly was not an easy year for any of us.

But remember, please: there has never been an easy year to be a refugee - and there will never be.