UN Geneva Press Briefing - UNHCR, WHO

Good morning. Welcome to the press briefing of the UN Information Service here in Geneva. Today is Tuesday, 14th of July, and I am very happy to have as first guests our colleagues from UNHCR and from Ipsos UK. So, of course, I don't need to introduce you to Matt or to Dominique Hyde, the UNHCR Director of External Relations. On my left, Trinh Tu, the Managing Director of Ipsos UK.

Hello.

And they have come to inform us on a recent study, I believe, from a joint study UNHCR-IPSOS. But I'll start by giving the floor to Matt.

Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be with you today and to bring you our 2 speakers this morning. They're going to be talking about some new data that have just come out on sentiment towards refugees. This is data that was conducted by the Ipsos agency, and it covers 29 countries. It's also historical data, so you can look back at previous iterations. We have released a press release which should be with you now in your inboxes, so do look out for that. And we're going to start with Trinh Tu from Ipsos, the Managing Director. Trinh, over to you.

Good morning, everyone. Lovely to be here. So, as Matt says, I'm going to take you through our latest release of the Global Attitudes to Refugees. This is a survey that Ipsos has undertaken since 2017. This year's survey, as Matt said, is across 29 countries, covering just over 21.5 people. The data is weighted by the population in each country, but it is not weighted by the relative size of the country's population. So it's an average of the 29 countries. So I'm going to cover 3 themes today that have emerged from this year's data. So the first one really is that the overall picture in terms of public attitudes towards refugees is really quite stable when we look at the data this year compared to previous years. So the top-line number is that 66% of the global population in those 29 countries support the principle of offering refuge to people fleeing war or persecution in another country, including in their own country. So, support is unchanged from last year, and when you look at the long-term trend, it's relatively stable as well. It's worth remembering that in 2022, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the data did jump quite significantly for that year from what we see today, 66%. It went up to 78% in that year. But it came down pretty quickly after that, showing that actually what we have now is a return to the long-term trend. So the other thing to note is that the stability in support for people seeking refuge doesn't mean that the debate about refugees has settled. The other data that we measure that's quite consistent and hasn't changed is that the public's perception that many people fleeing war and persecution and seeking refuge, not all— many, many of them are not in genuine need of protection. And that data has not changed either. It has been fairly stable. So people support the principle of providing refuge at the same time as expressing doubts. So, this year, 66% support and 61% believe that many people seeking protection are not in need of refugee protection. And many of these people are the same people. They hold both views at the same time, and I think that is one of the most interesting data from the survey is that after a decade of measuring this, people can hold both views at the same time. And when you look at the debate going on, you might be mistaken for people either pro-refugees or against refugees. Actually, the data show it's much more subtle than that, that people support protection for those in need at the same time as having some doubts about whether the system is operating as it should. When we ask people who think that many people seeking refuge are not genuine, we say to them, why do you hold this view? And the reasons, the top 3 reasons they give us are because they can see that refugees, people fleeing, have means, they have financial means. The second is, why do they not settle in the first country that they come to? And the third that they mentioned is traditional— the traditional media. There are other factors at play as well, including social media, people they talk to, but those 3 are the top 3. Interestingly, when you talk to people who are really positive about the principle of providing refuge. They come at it from a slightly different point of view. They're more likely to say that the skeptics are not— are basing their opinions on politicians and they're basing their opinions on social media, when the skeptics themselves say they base their opinions on something else. So there is a disconnect between the people who are supportive of the principle of refuge and those who—

who don't.

So the second point that I wanted to cover today is that support looks quite different in practice. So this year, because of the displacement in Iran and Lebanon, we thought that it would be interesting to actually get people to think about a real-life immediate situation. So when we asked people about whether they would know, how would they like their government to respond to the conflict— displacement caused by the conflict in Iran and Lebanon. The most interesting thing is that very few people say that their government should do nothing, 8%. What's really interesting is that there is a broad range of policy options that people choose. The top one is humanitarian aid. The second is diplomatic action. The third is providing temporary asylum. And then you've got providing support, financial support in the affected regions. Accepting refugees in their country had only 6%. So it was relatively low compared to something like humanitarian assistance where 28% supported that. So I think, you know, at first when you look at it, you can say that actually this this can look quite contradictory. How can you say that you support the principle of providing refuge when actually you only support— 6% support accepting refugees into the country? I think the data shows something much more subtle than that. People can support the principle of providing refuge at the same time as having a much broader viewpoint on what that looks like in practice. The third point I wanted to raise before I hand over is the discussion about future responsibility— who, where should be responsible for supporting people who are displaced in the future. So we measured this last year, and then we repeated it again this year, so we have 2 years of data on this. Now, international organizations came out top as the most mentioned group that people believe should do more to support refugees globally at 39%. So that's not changed at all. What's really interesting is the movement between— underneath that. So we've got more people now saying that NGOs should do more, their own government should do more, but there's been a reduction in the proportion of people saying that wealthier countries should do more. So I think it's— we have to be cautious because we've only got 2 years' worth of data, but what the 2 years of data tells us is that people's perception of responsibility is becoming broader, so they are seeing this more as a joint responsibility, more actors being involved rather than just relying on a small number of people. So I'm just going to round this up. So I think the reason why we do this survey every year is not so much for the movement year on year, but actually to look at the long-term trend. And the long-term trend suggests that actually nearly— after nearly a decade of doing this, the data is really quite stable. What we see at the moment is a tension between people wanting to support those in desperate need, at the same time as having doubts about whether the system is working as it should. So the questions for the public going forward really is, who should be protected? How should protection be delivered? Who should be responsible? And how do we feel— build confidence in the system to ensure that it's working fairly? And I think these are really good questions in a year where we are reflecting on 75 years of the Geneva Convention. Thank you.

Thank you, Alessandra.

Thank you, Trin.

That's a perfect pass if we were playing football. You've thrown the ball on the Convention. Good morning, Good morning, everybody. Nice to see you, and I always look forward to this annual, now, discussion with Trin, which has such fascinating data on what populations across 29 countries are thinking when it comes to refugees. As many of you know, this year marks 75 years— 75th anniversary of the Refugee Convention, 3 quarters of a century. The Convention has been upheld, a simple but vital principle: people fleeing war, fleeing conflict, fleeing persecution must be able to seek safety. And what you just heard from Trinh is that through this new Ipsos survey, what it shows is that this principle still is as valid and still has strong public support. And this has been shown, as I said, across 29 countries. 66% of people agreed that those fleeing war, conflict, and persecution should be able to seek refuge in another country. That support has remained broadly stable despite political tension, economic pressure, and as you all know very well, a very polarized debate often fueled by misinformation, and hate speech. But despite all of that, and that's why I'm— this is so interesting for us, this Ipsos survey, is that people continue to stand by refugees. But you also heard from Trinh, the people are also showing, and the survey shows this, that public attitude is still complex. So I'm sure you haven't read it all, but as you read through the survey, you will see some, some differences from one country to another, but also how some issues are not straightforward. What we know is that many people support the right to seek safety while also questioning whether asylum systems are fair, efficient, and properly managed. This is an important message for this anniversary. 75 years on, the challenge is is not only to defend the Convention, but also to make sure that the promise works in practice. So that means that fair and effective asylum systems, it means timely decisions, and it means supporting the countries and communities that host most of the world's refugees, and it also means sharing that responsibility fairly. As some As some of you might know, I was in Burundi and Rwanda very recently. I saw both what that meant in terms of protection of refugees and the consequences when international support falls short. In Busuma in Burundi, it's a refugee camp hosting 57,000 Congolese refugees who have fled conflict in their area. I sat with mothers. I sat with fathers who had barely enough to eat. I listened to families describe their overcrowded shelters, if they were lucky enough to have a shelter. I spoke to families about how unsafe they felt the water was, and not just unsafe, not sufficient. And nights spent in exposed cold because it was at 2,000 meters of altitude, and in the day, just sheer heat. At the time of my visit, only 43% of the people that are in this refugee camp had access to adequate shelter. So what we see is Burundi has opened its doors far beyond its means, but generosity cannot replace this international responsibility that Trin just spoke to. The Congolese who found safety there did not lose everything only to be forgotten. And what they kept saying to me is they're only asking for one thing: for dignity and for their most basic needs to be met. In Rwanda, I saw a very different reality. I met young people with hope building their futures through education, through scholarships and skills training. I met refugees as well as returnees starting businesses and farmers from refugee and host communities working side by side. These young people that I met did not want to be defined by the displacement that they had lived. They wanted opportunity, not dependency, and the chance to contribute. And that is what protection makes possible. The lessons from both of those countries are clear. Emergency assistance saves lives. Inclusion creates opportunity, support for return and reintegration. But— and my final point is it takes a village. We can't do this ourselves. We heard it from the Ipsos survey. The burden needs to be shared. It cannot rely on one person. Trin said it. More and more people want to see governments step up, NGOs step up, and of course international organizations continue the work that is being done. So all 3 are part of fulfilling the promise of the Refugee Convention. 75 years after the Convention was adopted, its central promise remains as relevant as ever. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you very much, Dominique, and thank you to the 3 Thank you, Christine, for her initial remarks. I'll open the floor to questions now. I'll start with Christiane Ulrich, the German news agency.

Thank you for the briefing. I haven't had a chance to look at it, but you just alluded to the fact that there are varying results depending on the countries. Maybe you could give us one or two examples and try and explain why these differences are there. Thank you.

Hi. So there are differences, I suppose. I mean, the 2 that we pulled out, you know, in— so France is one of the countries where the— and Japan are 2 countries where the views towards supporting people in need of persecution have changed quite dramatically since we measured it. So between 2009— 2019. When we looked at those 2 countries, and now they have to— I haven't got the figure to my— to hand, but the jumps are significant in those countries up, so they're much more compassionate. I think the key thing to note is that when you look at the country variations on the support for seeking refuge, it doesn't really matter which country you look at, the tension behind the scene is quite persistent in terms of they all have doubts about whether everyone seeking protection are really in need of protection. So the views go up and down. Those 2 countries shows you that actually views can change quite dramatically over the long term. But even when they change, And even among countries that are really, really supportive, like Britain and like the Netherlands, where support is really high, but tension is really high as well. So they all have that in common. But Japan and France are the two that I think, you know, shows you that these views, public views, and we see this in most of our work, public perception is not fixed, because public perceptions do change over time at the country level.

Dominique, you wanted to add something?

Yes, just maybe quickly, just actually in terms of the, let's say, top countries that are continuing to support refugee protection are Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, and Brazil. And what we've seen as well, which is quite interesting, is a hike for Australia and the United States.

Can you finish the sentence? What is the hike in Australia and the United States? More people—

More people are positive. So you've seen over time, you've seen actually more people in those 2 countries defending the right to seek safety.

So, sorry, can I add another question? If the tensions are high, as you said, if the tensions are high, is there a role for UNHCR to work in all countries globally to do something about that, to dispel maybe myths or to address people's concerns?

Exactly, and a good question. So obviously we don't just take these results from Ipsos and wait for the next years to see. It actually really informs also how we are communicating in these countries, how we work with the governments, how we work— and more, I didn't— I haven't delved into it so much, but I think some of the things that are also interesting to look at is that you see an overall overwhelmingly young population even more supportive. So it's interesting to see that the youth in these countries are— continue to be very supportive of the refugee cause. But I hope I got that right, Trin. Sorry that we're doing it back and forth on this one.

Yes, you have.

I mean, there is a generation difference with the younger generation much more supportive of the right to seek refuge. They're much more optimistic about integration. as well, that refugees will integrate well. But at the same time, they too are not without doubt, so they too think that many people who are seeking protection may not be in need of protection. So I think the theme is quite similar across the generations in terms of their concerns, but in terms of the level of support, it is higher among the younger generation. And just to get back to your kind of like your questions about what can be done about this, I think what the survey highlights is that there are lots of ways people form their perceptions in a number of ways. So it's not just about addressing one thing and the other. And we know from our experience of really doing a lot of this in Britain is that— throwing lots of facts at people doesn't work. So if you look in Britain this year, we've got the higher— the lowest net migration in Britain, but at the same time, half of the population thinks that actually immigration has gone mad in Britain, even though the facts— so I think it's quite holistic in terms of what you need to do to address people's concern, and there isn't really one simple answer. to the issues.

Alexandre Grobois, AFP.

Yes, thank you for this briefing. Talking about those differences of perception, and do you see differences between countries with drastic migration policies and countries that are more welcoming?

I suppose, I mean, the— I suppose it depends on how you defined these countries. I think what it shows is that there is no, I suppose, straight answer to the differences. So you could see Germany, for instance, and Sweden where the intake of refugees is quite sizable. In those countries, the support for refugees is— remains relatively strong, whereas when you look at countries like Turkey and Poland, the support is less strong compared to previous years. I think the country variations shows us that really— there is not really a simple answer because when you look at people's views, they're quite complicated in terms of, you know, they hold multiple views at the surface that you think are quite conflicting. So I— my caution is not to kind of like be simple in how we interpret this. I think it varies quite a lot based on country circumstances. instance, what goes on in the political, the economic, and the environment, as well as people, how people feel about them.

Just maybe very simply, exactly right, Trin, and I think that it varies so much that it's difficult, but if I give you— there's some— you'll read it in the report, but some dynamics that are a bit— if I take South Africa, for example, the views by the population are quite positive, but then the policies are different.

Sorry. Emma Farge, Reuters.

Good morning. Thanks for this briefing. Could you take a stab at trying to explain that at all, why we're seeing a kind of hike in support in places like the United States when the politics is going the opposite direction? How would you reconcile that? And then, if I may, I have a more general question, but let's exhaust the questions on the report first.

I mean, you know, honestly, that would be just a guess on my part, Emma. I would just say that this is about values. Values. I think most people want to help their neighbor. They want to help individuals that have suffered conflict, that have suffered violence. I think that people understand that And there's a feeling when you hear that that you want to help somebody. And Trin has given examples of what the more detailed work on Lebanon and others, but whether it's Ukraine. So I think it's also based on lived experience. I think then the policies often, and some of the misinformation and hate speech, as I mentioned at the beginning, drive more some of those policies than actually taking time to listen. So I think this is what makes this survey also very strong, is that we're, we're maybe hearing about the population. We'd love it if it was a broader number of countries, if it was, if it was larger. But I think what we're seeing is year after year with this survey is we're also looking at trends. And I— when you'll delve into it, it'll be interesting. I would almost welcome having a lunch conversation about it. But that's— I'm not putting that forward.

Thank you. And Emma, I won't forget your question, but there are more online unless there are more in the room. I don't see in the room, so let's go online. Isabel Sacco, Spanish news agency. Yes, good morning.

Thank you, Dr. Lysandra.

I would like to know if the surveys says or suggests that people have a certain preference for a particular type of refugee. I mean, from specific countries or from a certain cultural background that is close to their own. And this is for the lady of Ipsos and for Dominique. I would like to know from her perspective, if she can mention what is— what she believes is the biggest setback regarding the right to asylum in recent years. Thank you.

Hi, thank you for that question. The survey does not ask questions about different types of refugees and whether people are more receptive to refugees that is kind of like similar to their culture or not. I think what the survey can answer is that the public support for the principle of seeking refuge is widespread across the 29 countries that we measure, and the level of concerns that I have spoken about is also also prevalent at the same time in those countries as well?

Isabelle?

Yes, I think Trin said it well. So I think there's a lot of people say that they would support help close to their home. So, for example, in the case of Lebanon and Iran, but also we saw that across Europe with the war in Ukraine, and the same thing in general. So I'd say that's a generality. reality, but maybe something we can take away. On the setbacks, I would say— I would focus maybe, Isabelle, on 3 setbacks I see. The first is we've really seen a decrease in the number of refugees who are offered resettlement, and maybe Matt has the latest numbers on that, but there's been a great decrease in the past few years in terms of refugees who are given the right to resettled in a third country. The third— sorry, the second is everything around misinformation, disinformation, hate speech that has really increased. Last week we had a briefing note on that, if you weren't here to listen.

Mm-hmm.

And I would say the last point, which I touched upon when I spoke especially about Burundi, and this is just a massive setback in terms of the cuts that have impacted not just UNHCR in that refugee camp I was in. WHO was supporting us— and sorry, supporting refugees in terms of health, but the base— and UNFPA as well, but had just the basics, and they were concerned if they would have any more money for doctors. UNICEF didn't have enough money for water, only 8 liters per day per person when the emergency needs are 15 liters. And I spoke to us on shelter, and we're seeing this globally globally, and that impact on NGOs, local NGOs, international. So I'd say those 3 would be the big setbacks that we are seeing.

Thank you. And I see Isabelle has a follow-up.

Yes, very quickly.

Thank you. Is the survey addressing the issue of climate change in any way? I mean, the issue of climate refugees. Thank you.

In terms of the trend data, there has been, apart from 2022 with the war in Ukraine, the change has been fairly stable. So the measurements we repeat year on year is the support for the principle of seeking refuge, whether many people who seek protection are really in need of protection, refugees' contribution, whether refugees will integrate, and whether borders should be shut. And on all of those measures, apart from the very short period in 2022, have remained fairly consistent.

I think she was asking about climate refugees.

We don't ask about climate refugees, but what I can say is a couple of years— we did years ago, when we did the very big survey with UNHCR, we did— we asked people about what their understanding of refugees, and what we did find is that there is quite a lot of confusion out there. People tend to mix migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and they do see people trying to flee because of climate change as refugees. as well. So there is, there is a lot of confusion out there, and I think this partly explains also some of the underlying tension that we keep seeing in terms of concerns about whether refugees, or many refugees, are genuine or not, is because of this underlying confusion as well.

Thank you very much. Laurent Sierra, Swiss News Agency.

Thank you.

A question on the methodology, because last year it was already 29 countries. But if I look back at the one in 2024, I think it was 54 countries. So much wider comparison. So can you explain why you chose since last year to reduce the number of countries surveyed? And does that affect the comparison you're able to draw on the long term? Thank you.

So, in 2024, we did a much larger survey in partnership with UNHCR. Now, we would love to have more money to do a larger survey, if anyone would like to volunteer. So, in order to enable the comparison of trend over time for this year and last year, we stripped out those countries that were included in 2024, but not included in all the other years. So the comparison we're making is always with those 29 countries being the same and stripping out those ones that only appear on a one-off.

Alex, good question. I think you had us both smiling. We'd love it to be back to 54. 2024 was a time in UNHCR's life where we had over $5 billion of income to the organization, and this year, if we're lucky, we'll get to $3 billion. So priorities are priorities. And so, of course, so this survey is through the generosity of Ipsos, and that's what was possible. So, of course, if you want to do crowdsourcing, we're open to that idea as well. So let's hope we can get back to that 54 or more.

I've heard the appeal. Thank you, Dominique and Paul Dupraz, Geneva Solutions.

Yes, good morning. Actually, this is a question more for UNHCR. You know, given the certain trends that we're seeing in, I guess, the donor country, many of the donor countries in terms of selectivity of which refugees they would be taking in, as well as, you know, all these deals of trying to house or have the— their cases or house refugees in third countries. Can we say that, you know, what we're seeing in terms of the Convention itself is retraction to what the Convention was initially set to address, which was focusing on the, you know, selective group of people that had been affected by World War II, most particularly in Europe.

No, I wouldn't agree with that exactly, Paula. I think over decades we have seen different historical moments of what that convention upheld, whether it was the Hungarians in the 1950s, to what happened in the Balkans, to Rwanda, the genocide, to what we've seen in terms of Ukraine. So I think that generosity goes up and down. We've seen Uganda continue to open its doors, Chad open its doors, and more to Sudan, and those numbers continue. So I would say that globally we continue to see very much that those values continue and persist. I'd say that where we have seen a shift, and I think this is a bit what I mentioned at the opening is really this burden sharing. And what we are seeing is a reduction in that resettlement part, where I think now we're under 100,000 refugees who have— who are being resettled in different third countries. So that would be what I would say. I'm not sure if— and yeah, I would stop here. Matt, did you know?

Okay, so I think this is the last question on the Syrian Good morning.

Can you hear me?

We can, Chihiro.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Alessandra, and thank you for the— you mentioned that the support for refugees for some countries has shifted over, like Japan and France.

Could you give me a little bit more detail, like what is the background and what is the reason, what caused the shift?

Thank you.

Hi. So we, in the survey, we don't ask people why views have changed. What we can observe is that views have changed, but we don't ask them the reasons. And as I mentioned earlier, I do think, you know, the views will, because there's so much variations between the countries, it will be dependent on on a host of reasons in terms of kind of like proximity, political and economic pressures going on in the country, and how politically alive the debate is on immigration. But we can't answer that question based on the survey data.

Very clear.

I still have another question from Gorky. Oh, sorry, you wanted to say something about that? Sorry, Gorky, one second.

No, well, the only thing I wanted to say is exactly Trin is right, we don't really know, but I was wanting to make a bit of a joke, maybe with the World Cup and our game changers, we have more refugee athletes, or some with refugee backgrounds, playing in the World Cup, so maybe that changed mindsets.

And the Olympic Games.

And the Olympic Games, but I don't think That's a that would I don't think Trin as as head of an EPSOS would actually validate my my my analytics intuition.

Gorky, bonjour.

Tout le monde. Ah bon, j'aurais dû laisser qu'on finisse dans cette note d'optimisme. Mais ma question est malheureusement si on prend le cas de la France. France où actuellement il y a 34%, selon encore les prévisions, de personnes qui voudraient voter pour l'extrême droite. Est-ce que ces situations-là, j'ai vu dans vos réponses, c'est vrai, vous ne voulez pas entrer dans les sentiments des gens, pourquoi ils sont favorables ou pas. Mais dans vos réponses, on sent nettement les situations économiques, les situations politiques, etc. Est-ce que de telles situations sont prévues dans vos études? Je vous remercie.

Pardon, la toute dernière phrase que vous avez dite, on n'a pas compris. Qu'est-ce qui est prévu dans ces études?

Est-ce que, par exemple, on envisage comme dans le cas précis de la France, espérons que ce ne sera pas le cas, où aujourd'hui 34% de la population française, selon des sondages, souhaiteraient voter pour l'extrémisme de droite.

Voilà.

Merci.

Et donc votre question, c'est par rapport à d'autres pays qui auraient les mêmes statistiques pour les votes?

En fait, la question est de savoir est-ce qu'une telle situation peut aussi avoir de l'incidence sur la perception des populations par rapport justement aux questions des migrants et des réfugiés.

OK, merci Gorky. Je traduis pour Trine.

Bonjour Gorky, merci pour la question. Écoutez, il m'est difficile de spéculer exactement pourquoi Des gens votent pour l'extrême droite ou pour la gauche ou pour le centre, etc. Je peux bien sûr spéculer. Bien sûr, je pense que vous avez répondu un peu à votre question tout seul. Ce qui est plus intéressant, c'est vraiment, en fait, de regarder les statistiques. Et si vous prenez la France, simplement, il y a plus de 68% qui, dans notre survey, disent qu'ils sont positifs par rapport à donner du refuge aux réfugiés. Donc, en fait, ça, c'est plutôt positif. Et est-ce que ça a augmenté... Par ailleurs, ça, en France, on a vu quand même une baisse depuis 2015. Donc, agree, ça a augmenté? Non, diminué. De diminuer. Donc, en fait, ça, peut-être qu'en regardant les statistiques de plus près, vous pouvez vous-même en retirer quelque chose. Ce que je dirais, c'est vraiment ce qui joue un rôle massif aussi, et on le voit, c'est dans des campagnes électorales, c'est utiliser vraiment cette misinformation et cette désinformation, et qui... joue de plus en plus à travers les élections qui ont lieu. Et ça, c'est très inquiétant.

Merci. Merci beaucoup.

So the question was, in countries like France, where there is a proportion, high proportion of people who vote the extreme right, whether that influences people's perceptions or not. So when you look at France, France is very similar to the normal this year, so it's 6— in fact, it is a little bit higher. 68% support the right to seek refuge, and that's pretty consistent over the previous couple of years. We don't ask people's political affiliation in the survey in order to draw any sort of differences, and to be honest, when we look across the piece in terms of demographics, like, you know, people's gender, it doesn't really make that much difference. The difference is actually at the generation level between the Gen Z and the baby boomers is where we see the biggest difference.

Thank you very much. I still have another question. Sorry, sorry, Emma, I'm not forgetting you. The brief by your plants.

Yes, thank you very much for taking my question, Alessandra. Yes, my question is regarding what is the sample size And the demographic breakdown, like, who have you interviewed this year and the past years?

So the total sample size is just over 21,500. So that means that when you break it down to kind of like things like gender, age, the sample size, the subgroup sample sizes are pretty big. I don't know off the top of my head, but with 21,000, 21,500, it's pretty sizable for those subgroups if you ever wanted to look at the comparison by subgroups.

Thank you very much. I don't see other questions on the report specifically, so Emma, you had a question for UNHCR?

Yeah, it's for Dominic, please. Since you alluded to the funding and it being considerably less than 2024, I was just hoping you could elaborate Talk us through how 2026 is looking versus last year versus 2024. And would you ever consider any changes to your funding model since you rely so heavily on voluntary funding? Thinking about the WHO, which is a different system transitioning towards contributions, mandatory contributions. Is that something you're considering or something else? Thank you.

Thank you, Emma. So, you know, we continue to see downturn, downwards numbers from last year and from the year before. We're expecting that this year we will receive over $3 billion, a bit over, $3.1 billion if we're lucky. And I think the big shift that we're seeing right now, contrary to 2 years ago, is the— what we would call tightly earmarked funding. So that has gone to over 54% of the funding that comes to the organization from 25% in 2024. And that has shifted on its own the funding model, because that tightly earmarked— it's not earmarked even at a country level, it's earmarked to a certain theme, to a certain population, and that has— and, and only to a very small portion of countries. So that's already deciding a lot, even how we allocate and who we choose support, and therefore countries like Burundi are being left behind because they're no one's donor darling. And so it's— so that has changed. We've seen unearmarked funding remain stable. That hasn't shifted, and that for us is a message that governments continue to see the global mandate of our organization. But the dip in earmarked— we've seen an increase, and we will be seeing increase in private sector funding coming to the organization. I expect that by the end of the year, our funding will be 20% private sector, of which the majority is coming from individuals, from people like you and I, where we are— will have reached over 2.9 million individuals giving to us. On your second question, right now our The High Commissioner has been working with Member States on relooking at how our budget is put together. We're relooking— as you know, we have a new High Commissioner, we have also a new set of executive team coming in, and so we're relooking at our strategic priorities and defining that. Based on that, we will be relooking at our financing model and what would a 2028 financing model look like. So more to come on that.

Thank you very much. Maya Plantz, Debrief.

Yes, thank you again. It's just a follow-up question. I was a little wondering, why do you produce this kind of report? And the tagline says, that 75 years on, that the support remains stable. Have you been doing this sort of research for 75 years? And so is Ipsos that does it? So it's a little confusing. Also, I have not received this report beforehand, so it's hard to make questions when you haven't seen the report.

Thanks, Maya. We should— you should have the report in your inbox in the form of a press release, which includes a link to the detailed data that should be with you now. And, of course, we haven't been doing this survey with Ipsos for 75 years, but I think the point is clear that, you know, the Refugee Convention was introduced 75 years ago at a time when needs were enormous, and at the time there was widespread support for asylum and for refugees. And the point we're trying to make now, and we've been doing this release with Ipsos for a number of years, is that even despite all of the background noise and the polarization in the world at the moment, generally, support for the institution of refuge and asylum is holding up, and we think that that's quite a positive thing to say in the current environment.

Thank you very much. Maya, you have a follow-up?

Yes, the follow-up is such that if you do a review of the news media using any of the AI platforms, you see that there is a lot of sentiment, anti-immigration sentiment throughout Europe and the developed world. So it's a little surprising that the results show such a positive, upbeat view. So I'm a little confused because if you were to include news media analysis of what's happening right now in the world. I don't think there is people really supporting immigration. And you can see by the vote that just happened in Switzerland to cap the population at 10 million, which didn't pass, but by a narrow margin. So I'm a little confused. And why do you always use Ipsos? Why don't you use another research firm? it has to be always an English firm, or is there a reason why you don't perhaps contract out the services of countries in the developing world? Because it ends up being just supporting you saying, yes, look, everybody supports us, give us more money. But I don't see the reason why you should be spending taxpayers' money on such obvious reports.

I think—

wrong too, because if you do research on AI, you'll find out that there's something—

Thank you, Maya. I think we got your point. I think, uh, I don't know who wants to start.

Maybe I can start with that one. Thanks. Um, I mean, Ipsos conduct the research and we partner with them to, to distribute and to release the research, and Ipsos are a highly reputable and professional firm. And so it's always very easy to work with them. In terms of your first question around sentiment, I think that's one of the reasons why we wanted to publicize this. It's absolutely fascinating, the fact that despite what you hear out there, all of the noise— and as Dominique said earlier, last week we put out a briefing note on misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech and how that's spreading like wildfire across social media platforms. And despite all of that, if you actually go in and drill into the data and you question over 20,000 people, you'll find that the results are actually quite different, and there isn't a huge level of hatred against foreigners and refugees and asylum seekers, and that there is still this groundswell of support for them. And I think that's a very interesting finding to retain during these times when there is so much noise that suggests things are to the contrary?

Yes, um, so, um, this research— Ipsos conduct this research and we fund this research, um, ourselves, and we did it, um, back in 2017 mainly for the very reason, the fact that we wanted this discussion to be informed by evidence, um, and, uh, and not just people's, um, opinions in the media. I think the— as I keep saying, I think that the findings are a little bit more complicated than having a pro camp and an anti camp. The findings are showing that actually the same people have both views. They support the principle, but at the same time they do have some concerns, and that is really reasonable for people to hold those both views. So I think the survey finding does not— is not contrary to what you're seeing. It's just a little bit more subtle and a little bit more complicated than the kind of like pro and anti-camp.

Thank you. Thank you very much, and please continue doing so. We really need this data to be as precise as possible. when we speak about these themes. Thank you very much, Dominique and Matt. Thank you, Trine. Thanks, and come back next year to tell us more. And now let me welcome our colleagues from WHO. Christian has brought us Dr. Chikwe Ihegwatsu, the Executive Director of Health Emergency Programs, who's just back from Bunia, and so we'll hear from him.

Thank you.

On his assessment of the situation in DRC. Christian, sit here because of the frame. You want to start or start directly with Dr. Chikwe?

Give me once, get him settled.

So yeah, thank you very much everybody. I'm very glad to be able to have Dr. Chikwe Ekwazu our Executive Director for WHO's Emergency Programme, here right after he came back from Bunia now a couple of days, to give us the latest on the challenges, the progress, the problems facing in this very complex outbreak. Chikwe, over to you.

So thank you and good morning. Thanks for joining. And like you just said, I've just gotten back from a week in the DRC, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Always a pleasure to go to DRC despite the many challenges.

Yeah.

Yeah? Yes.

Despite the many challenges, I'm always struck by the warmth and hospitality of the people in Bunia, energy in the town. It does feel like home in Nigeria sometimes. But in the DRC, this time during the trip, I met with our government counterparts, all the health workers, working partners. I went into the community and spoke to traders, drivers, visited a community radio station, your colleagues, and of course shared bread with the many WHO colleagues working in support of the DRC at the moment. So today I'd like to share with you a bit of what I found on the ground, what the latest data tells us as well, and what I think should be our priorities over the next few weeks. To summarize in one sentence, what I saw was both encouraging— my second trip there, I went— my first trip was about 6 weeks ago, and so this is already my second. So, quite encouraging on many fronts, but also deeply concerning on many fronts. So, every outbreak response is always a race between the speed of transmission and the speed of the response. In principle, this is how it always works. It is almost exactly 2 months since our DG declared this Ebola outbreak as a public health event of international concern.

concern.

And to be honest, going back after my first mission 6 weeks ago, like I said, I was encouraged by the response, which was significantly behind the rate of transmission 6 weeks ago and had strengthened considerably since then. So some— a bit of a few data points where we now have a treatment capacity of close to 800 beds. And this continues to increase every week. And this gives confidence in the response and in the community that we're serving. Our lab capacity has gone from 1 lab to 14 labs. To set up every new lab, it's not just about lab equipment and reagents, but it's an operation of logistics, power, supplies, security, transport, So every new location is almost a small miracle to get it up and running and running consistently, getting samples into the lab, getting results out of the lab every single day. Our contact follow-up rates are approaching 80%. Just last week, over 21,000 community health workers were being trained to access the communities Access to safe and dignified burials had improved significantly. We're carrying out about 30 of them, 30 to 40 burials every single day, not just for confirmed cases, but for any death in the community. And access to infection prevention and control has significantly increased in healthcare facilities. And we're learning every day. There's been important progress in research. On the 2nd of July, like you know, we started— enrolling patients for the first treatment trial for a monoclonal antibody and remdesivir. And over the next few hours, we expect an announcement on the first post-exposure prophylaxis trial starting today, tomorrow. So we await that announcement later today. And we know that CEPI has announced good progress towards phase 1 trials for the vaccine. So we're learning every day, and the research work is proceeding. But like I said, my visit was also profoundly sobering. Despite the progress we made, the outbreak continues to outpace the response efforts, and we have not caught up in the race I described, despite our best efforts. So as of July 11th, we had seen close to 2,000 cases, confirmed cases, and over 700 deaths across the 5 provinces now. This is now the 3rd largest Ebola outbreak ever, and we've seen the fastest growth in a single month since the outbreak started, and of all the Ebola outbreaks that we have managed. Perhaps the most alarming finding is that many of the newly reported deaths are people who died in their communities without ever reaching a health facility. And without receiving care, and as of today, 80% of new cases are outside our contact list, and so are coming to us from unknown chains of transmission. So what is our strategy? We must find the cases earlier, bring them into care as soon as possible, so that they so that we reduce transmission in the community. The more cases stay in the community, the more they transmit. it, the more we stay behind the curve. So to do this, we must ensure that the facilities are accessible, the communities have confidence in the care being provided, and they trust the response. So when I talk about increasing number of beds available, care facilities, it's not just about the physical infrastructure. It's also about providing confidence to the community that if they are to come into care, that they will be cared for and they will be supported and nurtured back into health. And that's really what we're doing at the moment. So we're supporting— and this will be the focus of our activities in the next few months. We've made considerable progress, but we have to push a lot harder on this front. So we're supporting the government of the DRC with all our partners to make this happen, from surveillance, laboratory testing, clinical care, IPC, see logistics, community engagement across the entire response. However, this outbreak requires resources that match the scale of the challenges that we are facing, and this is not for— not a burden DRC can be allowed to carry on its own. We've appealed for $115 million to support our response activities. This is not charity. If we do not act in solidarity today, we will pay a lot more in the future. Our priorities today include improving coordination, surveillance, testing, contact tracing, expanding clinical care, infection prevention and control, and finding access— accelerating access to new countermeasures, treatments and vaccines, as well as diagnostic tools. To date, we've received 40% of the funding that we asked for. In the face of such an urgent and glaring threat, this leaves a gap of approximately $70 million at a critical time in the response. So my message today is very simple. Progress is being made, but the outbreak is growing rapidly and spreading widely. We have the tools. We know what to do. The question is whether we have the courage And whether we we can mobilize the means. So this is not a time to step back, and this is my feeling coming back from DRC. It is time for national authorities, the international community, partners, donors, and the communities themselves to step up. And I can see from the time I spend there, everyone is doing their very best. But we must. It's a bit like a marathon. You you can't give up after the first lap or the second. You just have to keep pushing, even when you're getting tired and exhausted, knowing that you have to get to the end to win. So we cannot allow this outbreak to trigger devastating health, social, and economic consequences in the region and beyond. So we know this outbreak can be stopped. We have stopped many before. I've seen many of this myself in the 25 years I've worked on this. It seems very difficult in the beginning, especially now, but we can do it. Success always requires sustained commitment, strong partnership with the affected communities, and resources that are commensurate with the scale of the challenge that we face. And this is our collective challenge, but it's also our opportunity to show what can be done. So I'll pause here, happy to take any of your questions on any aspect of the points I've raised.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Doctor. It's very clear. Alexandre Grovois, AFP, the French news agency.

Yes, thank you very much for this briefing. At this stage of the epidemic, if I understand well, you're saying this is the 3rd worst in history. Could you say if it will potentially be comparable to the 2024 pandemic— epidemics?

Sorry.

You're referring to the last Ebola outbreak in the DRC, 2018 to '20?

No, the main one, the main one, which was—

2014.

2014, sorry, I'm mistaken. I'm mistaken in the figure, yeah. Thank you.

Yes, so it's an important question to ask, and where we'll get to absolutely depends on what we do today. 2014-15 was a completely different context. In this case, we're not assuming— making any assumptions. We know what we need to do. We have said that loud and clear, and we're pushing very hard. The DRC itself is pushing hard. While I was there, I saw the Minister, who was on already his third trip to Bunia, and he wasn't going around in ceremonials. He was leading the response, leading meetings, pushing local authorities, pushing the incident management structure. So everyone is aware of of the challenges, but also of the opportunities. And you know what we need to do is clear to us. So it's really, you know, as over the last few weeks. Like I mentioned, on all the indicators of the response, all of them are trending in the right direction. Now, the question is whether we can do that consistently. So we've almost passed the phase of the response that is always a sprint, you know, where adrenaline pushes all of us forward. We build, we establish, we build up human resources, fiscal infrastructure, supply chains, the warehouses are increasingly full. So, but this, every response as complex as this where we are behind the curve from the beginning is a marathon. And so the question now is, can we keep this up? We're in July, August, September, October. Can we keep this up over the next 4 months and push the curve down? Over the last few days, we have seen some Some of the highest numbers of new infections in a single day. A few days ago, we saw over 80 cases confirmed in a single day, and many people see this as bad news. I see it as good news. It's a sign of a maturing response. If there were not new cases being detected, I would be very worried, given the amount of effort that we are putting into the response at the moment. But with all these efforts, we're detecting increasing number of cases. People are having increasingly coming into care on their own, increasingly having confidence in the response. But, you know, we have to keep at it. And it's a very tricky period where you're responding, you're not seeing all the results that you anticipate, the numbers are increasing. It's very easy for government and the international community to get desperate. respondent about the response. But that's what we need, is exactly the opposite response, to recognize that the work is bearing fruit, the response is maturing, and now is not the time to drop the ball. Rather, now is the time to intensify efforts across all the pillars of the response.

Christiane Ulrich, German News Agency.

Yes, thank you for the briefing. You mentioned that most of the cases, deaths are occurring in communities and not amongst the contact list. Can you elaborate a bit? Can you repeat the figures, which I didn't get, but can you also elaborate a bit? Is this because people know they are possibly— their loved ones are possibly Ebola patients, but they don't want to send them to treatment centers, or is this because—

Yes.

These cases occur in conflict zones where there's no access to treatment centers. Just put a little bit more context on this. And what— how would you know that a person who died somewhere far away in a community was an Ebola case if there was that reluctance to acknowledge that? How would you— how do you find out that that was an Ebola case, and what do you do then once you have found out?

How many deaths have you seen so far? It's a very important question. So we've seen over 700 deaths. And the point I made was that most of these deaths are what we call community deaths. So they occur in the community. What happens when someone dies in the community? We take a swab before we offer the individual what we call a safe and dignified burial. Once there's a community death, the authorities are alerted. We send a team to offer them a safe burial so that transmission— burials are one of the riskiest areas for transmission to others. So before the funeral happens, we take a swab, and that swab is then tested to find out if that individual had the virus or not. So the good news is we are carrying out the entire response between 30 and 40 safe funerals every day. These are not all cases. So because once the swab is taken, we can then say whether they had Ebola or not. But right now, we don't have the luxury of waiting for the result before doing the burial. So we do the funeral anyways, and then we look at the results later.

Thank you.

But what it means is that people are being ill in the community, are being cared for by their loved ones, and not enough of them are coming into care. Because if they came into care, 2 things would happen. One, it will increase their chances of surviving, and if they ultimately pass away, there'll be a lot more confidence that the system has done everything possible. So the message out there is You know, we are able to provide care for people. While there's no specific treatment for people with the Bundibugyo species of the Ebola virus, if you come into care early, your chances of survival just by supportive care are a lot higher. And over the last few weeks, like I said, we've increased the capacity to provide that care with our partners working in the field. So it's very important. And we've released some of— discharged some patients. And each discharge is actually— we celebrate it because, you know, we go out of our way to celebrate every single patient that we can discharge because it brings joy to the healthcare workers. It's very challenging working in an Ebola treatment center because ultimately you are confronted with a lot of death. But, you know, so whenever we discharge a patient, we celebrate with the community, with healthcare workers, with the patients' relatives. So it's very important that we bring in and encourage the community to have confidence in the care being provided, encourage them to come in so that they know that they've done their absolute best for everyone infected.

Emma, Reuters.

Hi, good morning. Given the high number of community deaths, do you have any idea of the real death toll? toll from Ebola in Congo? And also, if you could say on the funding, 40%, is that exceptionally low versus other outbreaks? Thanks.

There will never be absolute certainty in the context of the Eastern DRC. You know, this is a complicated environment with many different types of complexities. So on the one hand, in Bunia, you have a thriving city with trade and commerce, and you land there and you're just filled with the energy of the city. But in the same time, around Ituri, you have towns with large camps of internally displaced people, parts of the context that have had literally years of insecurity and and, you know, gangs and attacks and all sorts of challenges. So there are multiple challenging contexts within the 5 provinces that are now affected. So there's no one single story that fully describes this context. We think, with some of our support in modeling, that the scale of the outbreak is at least 2 to 4 times the number of cases that we have found. Every day, our capacity to find cases are increasing and improving, so the confidence in the numbers keeps improving day to day. So we will never know for sure, but with the combination of the number of deaths, the swabs and their results, the positivity rates of those that come into care, we can combine all of that to give a certain level of confidence on the data that we have. On your second question, on the funding that we have received, you know, we were very conservative in the amounts that we said we needed. So, you know, we put out the figure of $115 million for the first 6 months of the response, which we've been very transparent about. There's a financial tracking mechanism that gives all the donors clarity on what has come in and where it's gone. So we've been fully transparent on all the resources that have come in and what is needed for the response. The government itself has put in close to $50 million in the response. So it's not like they're not taking responsibility for the challenges there. But this is really an opportunity for the world to come together and respond. Right now, at across the road in the head offices of the WHO, member states are negotiating the PABS Annex. The Intergovernmental Working Group is discussing how to share pathogens and how to make sure that response efforts are targeted at countries. And at the same time, the world is facing a big Ebola outbreak and we're struggling with the resources to respond. So there's a bit of cognitive dissonance between the threats facing us and the efforts that we're making to respond. And we need the world to come together, not just out of charity or out of support to the DRC, but in our own enlightened best interest. The more we do right now, the better place we will be in the future.

Yeah, go ahead.

Just on the PABs, like, imagine that had been negotiated And it was in place already for this outbreak, how would that actually help in Bunia or in Ituri?

The way the PABS Annex might have helped will really have depended on the context of what they've agreed, because there are parts of it that are not only in the context of a pandemic, but they are still discussing in a fake, is there opportunities to come together and support the response? With medical countermeasures beyond supporting the production of new countermeasures. And at the moment, we have to negotiate every single thing separately. There are no principles in who brings what. So we're talking about diagnostics, vaccines, PPE, therapeutics, post-exposure prophylaxis. And for each of those items, teams in WHO and our partners need to go and discuss discuss with each provider. There's no principle in terms of when an incident of this scale happens, what does the world do together? And that's really what we're trying to do, to say, listen, rather than debate and negotiate and do appeals for every event, can we at least agree that if an event happened, these are the first set of triggers that would happen where we come together and support the response? wherever it's happening.

Thank you very much. Let me go to the platform. Gorky, you have the word. Can you ask the question in English to the doctor? Gorky, it's Continuum Premier, the Soleil de Dakar.

Bonjour, doctor. How are you?

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

Happy to have you back in Geneva. I would like to raise 2 questions. First of all, And you're talking about reaching people, and for you it's quite complicated to have these people back on your program.

How?

What is the reasons why these people, they do not have confidence on your vaccine, your way of dealing with Ebola? This is, I don't know how many times that the world is facing Ebola. Is it not a mistake of WHO for taking care universal access of medicine? Second question is, what is the relation you're having with the other NGO like MSF? Thank you, sir. Oh, excuse me, a third question. I know that my dear brother Dr. Tedros was in Mauritania trying to find money with Africans. How is it going now?

Maybe the third question we'll ask Christian to come in, but Doctor, maybe you want to take the first 2?

Yeah, so a very important question. So firstly, We all have to recognize the mandate WHO has from its member states and what it doesn't have, right? The provision for healthcare, health services every day of the week is the responsibility of countries themselves. The DRC is a big country. They're doing their very best, complex set of circumstances with a lot of other challenges. Having been there myself now a number of times, also before this outbreak. You know, I see the efforts being made, but there are constraints as well, and that's where we come together to support them, and as we would do for any other country where there's emerging— an emerging infectious disease threat. So, you know, the challenges of the emergence and reemergence of infectious diseases can never be seen as a, you know, a way of judging how countries provide basic healthcare services for their citizens, because there are a multiplicity of circumstances. And if I think about where the DRC is, right on the equator, on the, you know, on the context, the climate, the socioeconomic circumstances, it's no surprise that, you know, the last few years has seen consistent emergence of Ebola outbreaks, mpox, fake, was really concentrated in the DRC. So now is not the time to make judgment calls on how well access is being provided to the citizens of that country. Now is the time to respond to the disease, respond to the outbreak, and then ask the question subsequently on who provides care, when, and how. On your second question, on working together with NGOs, you know, there's an excellent relationship right now in the field. Partners are working hard in different areas, and not just MSF, many others— the Red Cross, IMC, a whole plethora of agencies for safe and dignified burials, for instance. This is led mostly by the IFRC and the ICRC in Bunia and the rest of Ituri, and working together with FHI 360, they are the primary providers of services in that area. So we have more or less divided the responsibilities across both the NGOs and the UN organizations, and, you know, we do a lot of work coordinating all of that. There's a new senior Ebola coordinator, Julius Hanis, who is in Ebola— who is in the DRC already, working to make sure that the support of all the humanitarian actors, the partners in the IASC, the Interagency Standing Committee, which includes both UN agencies and NGOs working in the humanitarian space, are coordinated to support the public health response. So I think there's good collaboration happening. If you have heard anything otherwise, it would be great to hear from you, but having sat with colleagues in MSF the evening before I left, I think most things are going well. In any of these contexts, there will be a few niggling issues, but nothing too consequential.

Christian, on the issue of funding.

Thank you, Gorky. This gives me a wonderful opportunity to hint at tomorrow's press briefing by the DG, which has been scheduled scheduled for 3 o'clock. I think the announcement hasn't even been sent out yet, so you're the first to hear it tomorrow, 3 o'clock, DG briefing, and it's hybrid for those who want to join in person. Cheers.

So no questions, no answers about the funding? He'll say— you don't have any answers on that?

So these questions can be asked tomorrow, exactly.

Gonzalo Costas, The Lancet, and François Quatre.

Yes, good morning. Thank you for the briefing, sir. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit the shortfall in the request for $115 million. Is that a part of the joint appeal you launched with Africa CDC, the $518 million? And what's the shortfall in the big appeal as of today? And if you could elaborate a little bit, Also on attacks on health, and what's the situation now? Has that improved? Have you enhanced security around health facilities, or is that still a big challenge? Thank you.

So thank you. The first question is definitely part of the joint appeal with the Africa CDC and other partners for the $518 million. We monitor what is coming into the WHO Proportion of that, the $115 million, that's why I can give you very precise figures. For the rest, I'm not able to provide the level of precision around how much has come in, but I think the figures are still below 50% altogether. So we'll keep following up on that, and there's a new financial tracking mechanism. I'll share the link with colleagues to be able to follow themselves. Yourselves on where we are with the resource mobilization. On the attacks on the health facilities, you know, this has improved a lot. We've seen one or two sporadic ones in the last— I think the last one was now 4 weeks ago, definitely before my trip. But, you know, even the ones that have happened have all been sporadic events. Of course, they receive a lot of publicity, and none of them should happen. But we will not solve this by increasing security around facilities. The major way we will solve this is by being open and transparent with the care being provided in these places, in these facilities. So what we have done, before any new center is opened, we invite members of the community, leaders of the community, to come to the centers to see what is being done, to see the facilities being provided, to see and speak with the healthcare providers that have left their homes to come to Ituri to support the care being provided. Many of them are from other parts of the DRC, some of them are from other countries on the continent. And so I think the more we can show the community the care, the facilities, the context, the efforts being made, the fact that they are not going to be left alone, they'll not only be treated, they'll be offered food, they'll have access to their families, the more they have confidence in the facilities being set up, the fewer attacks we are seeing on health in the area. I did not sense any ideological resistance to the response. I felt the normal anxiety that you would have if, you know, you're faced with a virus that has such a high case fatality ratio, you're uncertain what is going on, and this is over and above the many challenges people living in this context face every day. So there was some challenge in the beginning, but I think as the response has grown, we have improved the relationship with the communities being served. They have increasing confidence in the response, and we are seeing fewer attacks on health in the DRC.

Thank you very much. Tobias Saller, German ARD. Yeah.

Hi.

Sorry.

Here you are. No, no. Now you are on top. Yes.

Thank you.

Sorry, my raised hand is a mistake.

Didn't mean to.

Thank you.

Okay, okay, so it was a little technical glitch. Thank you very much. So I don't see any— oh yeah, Alex.

Yeah, just 2 quick questions. There are now 5 provinces affected by Ebola. Can you tell us how WHO is concerned about the expansion of the outbreak to new provinces? And second, what do WHO think about the US travel restriction which has just been published about people leaving DRC?

So very important questions. You have to imagine that This is a fire. Oh, I'm sorry.

It's—

there's something driving the fire in its heart, and it's also expanding at the same time. So we have 2 new provinces, Hautewele and Tshopo, where Kisangani is, that have just reported new cases. South Kivu hasn't had a case in like 6 weeks, thereabouts, 4 weeks. And North Kivu continues to have a number of cases. But 95%, close to 95% of all new cases are still from the Ituri Province, so from the heart of where the outbreak started. So we have to focus on a strategy in 2 ways. Firstly, continue pushing at the heart of the outbreak in Ituri, in the 5 health provinces of Bunia, Mongwalu, Rampara, Nyakunde, and Nizi. These are really the 5 health zones within Ituri where most of the cases are being reported. But at the same time, understand the travel routes where people go for trade and travel or care and really map out where the risks are of new cases coming up. And that's really the approach we're taking. And so last weekend, our team together with with lots of national colleagues who are in Kisangani to set up treatment facilities, to educate the population, to enlighten people on the risks, especially because of its transport links, the fact that it's on the Congo River, there are lots of risks around there. So, and so that's really the dual track of how we're responding to this, focusing on the heart, but also making sure that we understand where the risks based on travel routes in the other provinces. But to say, yes, there are new provinces affected, but if you look at the numbers, 95 to 90— 90 to 95%, depending on the day you count, cases are still all around the Ituri Province. On your second question around travel restrictions, the recommendations of the emergency committee that advised the Director-General during the declaration of the fake were very clear, evidence-based and science-based on what we think is an appropriate response by countries and citizens to the response. But we cannot legislate over what individual countries do. We advise them. And, you know, it's up to them to decide themselves what they do. But our advice is very clear. We need a balanced response in mitigating the risk at the heart of the response, but also enabling a context where health workers, healthcare workers, colleagues from WHO, from MSF, from IFRC are able to come in and support the response as well. So, and if they get ill, the confidence that they will get the care they need both within and outside So we, from what we have learned over many, many years, immediate closure of borders hasn't really mitigated the impact or growth of any outbreak, and I'm not sure it will do in this case. Over.

Emma, you also had raised your hand.

Yeah, just a couple of short follow-ups. Have you sorted out the issue of the quarantine time for people involved in the response? That was proposed by the Congolese government? And also the strike, just a quick update. Has that been resolved now, or are healthcare workers and people in the response still on strike? Thank you.

So, thanks. So you remember that after the health worker that was working among one of the partners providing Alima was tested positive in France, the national authorities in the DRC proposed a 21-day observation period for people working in the response. Firstly, it's important to understand why there was this reaction by the government of the DRC. You know, when a country is working so hard with partners and everyone to respond to an outbreak, they're also worried about what the reaction of the world would be to them as a country and as an economy that is trying to succeed. So if they are anxious about what the response of the world would be, they then jump on measures to try and mitigate those. And so I think it's important for all of us to understand that if we live in countries in the West and around the world where we do have the facilities to manage patients with Ebola, that we have a responsibility to assure our colleagues that are going into this outbreak context that if they were to get ill, that we would offer them the care that they deserve when they come back out. And so it's very important that any one of us, and this could be any of us going into the DRC to support the response, you know, is confident that, you know, the countries that are able to will be able to provide the care that those healthcare workers definitely deserve. So on the On the observation period, we are working with the government to institute a more risk-based approach, completely understanding their local circumstances, because this is not only for internationals working in the response, it's also for people traveling from Ituri Province to the rest of the country, where they have to manage the risk of spread within the country. So there's a legitimate concern. In the DRC that led to the measures that they took, and we are working with them now on their invitation to clarify who exactly is at risk of further transmission and who those limitations affect the most. And we're hopeful that that will be resolved soon. And at the moment, reasonable and rational exceptions are being made, so it is not hampering the response. to the outbreak. I think your second question was around the strikes. This is a local issue with local authorities, both at the national level and at the provincial level. What we— what the health workers very graciously agreed to was to keep working until the issues are resolved. So we haven't seen a stoppage in healthcare being provided for patients. So There are some disagreements around rates. Those are being managed by the HCRC, the humanitarian coordinator in the DRC, working with the government to agree on rates being paid by a whole series of organizations, both local and international, both working for government and NGOs. So you can imagine the spread of responsibilities. So to agree on a fair remuneration for staff is also a complex process. But at the moment, I can assure you that while I was there and since I've left, I haven't— I did not experience any stoppage in healthcare being provided. And so we hope that those issues will be resolved soon.

Thank you very much. Is there any other question for our colleagues of WHO, whether online or here? No? But Christian, you have an announcement.

Yeah, one announcement I made already, that's for the DG press briefing tomorrow. And today you will have the world's largest and most comprehensive dataset on immunization trends for 195 countries on vaccine vaccinations against 13 diseases, and that's the WHO and UNICEF estimates of national immunization coverage. The press briefing is in roughly 2 hours. You had seen the media advisories and most of you have already requested the embargoed material. There's embargo to this until tonight, actually, or early tomorrow morning, 2 o'clock in Geneva. That's it from me.

Thank you.

See you later.

See you later indeed. Thank you very much. Is there any other question or comment? I don't see any. And so today, not usual, but I don't have any other announcement for you except reminding you that tomorrow is World Youth Skills Day, and we'll send a statement of the Secretary-General in all languages to you. So thank you very much. Have a nice afternoon, and I'll see on Friday. Thank you.

Thank you.