UN Geneva Press Briefing: UNHCR, IOM, UNICEF, WHO

Okay, so let's start this briefing. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the press briefing of the Information Service of the United Nations here in Geneva. Today is Friday, 6th November, and we you have received the agenda of the briefing. But before we start, I wanted to introduce a colleague who's not new exactly, but maybe has not been introduced properly to you, and I would like to do it now. Qatban Lahmoud is the communication focal point or communication officer, maybe it's the right title, of the Independent Institution on Missing Persons in the Syrian Arab Republic, and he is based in Geneva. So we will hear more from him because there is an event which is coming up. Maybe you want to say a word about that, but I just wanted to introduce you to him officially. So maybe you want to take the floor for just one word. Thank you.

Mr. Thank you very much, Alessandra, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Actually, very honored to be here, and thank you for the kind introduction. I am Watban, and the public information officer of the Independent Institution on Missing Persons in Syria, based here in Geneva, as indicated by Alessandra. We are based here in Geneva, for those who are not aware of our institution, and I’m looking forward to have interactions with all of you that who are interested in the missing persons file in Syria. Me and my colleague are present here even after this event. If you would like to reach out, we'll be more than happy to share information when requested. As indicated by Alessandra, we are holding an annual forum for the independent institution early December, and we will be sharing information with regards to that. Particular event, and then you can reach out to us separately; we will give you more details on the event itself after the event.

Absolutely. Thank you very much, Whatman. And just for your information, we are revising the list of spokespersons, so you will find the contact details of Whatman in that updated version of the list. Thank you very much, Whatman. So let’s start now with the first subject of our briefing, which is Sudan. I don’t know if you want to come in, and also Zoe. And we have a joint briefing today. by IOM and UNHCR. So we have the pleasure to welcome Abubakar Jalloh, who's the UNHCR Deputy Representative in Sudan, who's connecting from Khartoum. Welcome, sir. And Mohammed Refaat, who is the Chief of Mission IOM from Khartoum. I don't think I need to introduce you to him because we have had the chance to hear from him several times. So here is the problem of funding that we want to underline today. Who would like to start?

Good morning, everyone. As Alexandra just mentioned, I’m pleased to introduce Abubakr Jalloh, our UNHCR’s Deputy Representative in Sudan, who is joining us from Khartoum. Abubakr has been in Sudan since the war broke out in April 2023. He has witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of this war on millions of people and the extraordinary resilience of the Sudanese community despite everything they have He has also just returned from Kosti in White Nile state, where he met displaced families and heard their stories. Today, he will share his personal reflection on the past three and a half year of war, what he has witnessed on the ground, and the increasingly difficult condition facing displaced families as winter approaches, with humanitarian needs growing and resources running dangerously low. Abu Bakr, thank you so much for joining us from Khartoum. Khartoum, over to you.

Thank you very much for the warm introduction. Good morning, everyone. Indeed, yes, I'm calling and joining you from Khartoum. On 15th of April 2023, I woke up in Khartoum to the sound of war. The days that followed are still very much blurred. Like millions of Sudanese, I did not know where the next shell will land, or whether families will see each other again. Many fled within minutes, carrying only what they can lay hand on. They left their homes, they left their blankets, they left their cooking pots, everything that makes a house a home. For millions of people across Sudan, this uncertainty remains real. and with the urgent need for a safe room over their heads, and the most basic items to begin with. Today, I am back in Khartoum, working with partners, with civil society, with communities, and with everyone who has, I mean, helping everyone who have lost their lives or have been uprooted in this war. Three and a half years on, the conflict continues and suffering deepens. As frontlines changes, more families forced to flee. Some of them will flee for the first time, while others are fleeing for a second time or even a third time. They arrive in places with little or nothing to support them. The host communities, and we must commend them for this, are doing all they can to help, struggling to meet the growing needs, which they themselves have very little to provide. Almost 15 million people in Sudan have been uprooted by this war or are trying to rebuild their lives in places that have been destroyed. They include Sudanese, Displaced within Sudan country itself, they include returnees who are determined to restart their lives, and they include refugees who at some point fled into Sudan seeking safety years ago, but because of the conflict, they are also fleeing for their lives once again. This year, the war has suddenly spread to a new front line in the Blue Nile state. Nearly 120,000 people have been displaced there since January. Many fled in the middle of the night. Some arrived in places of relative safety with only what they can carry. Others arrived with nothing at all. And even after fleeing, many still do not feel safe. Three in four displaced persons in Sudan are women and children. When our teams speak to displaced people, and it's just been mentioned that I also came from Kosti, when we talk to displaced in Blue Nile, in the Darfurs, in the Kordofans, we hear strikingly similar stories. They have no privacy. There are no private or separate latrines for women and girls. Children are being sent to work without, I mean, because their families have nothing left. For a woman who has lost everything, a tent is more than just a shelter. It means the difference between sleeping in the open, surrounded by strangers, and having a space of our own. It means dignity, it is privacy, and it is safety. for that woman and family. The same for a solar lamp. A solar lamp is more than just a source of light. It is safety. It means a woman can reach a latrine at night without walking in darkness. A kitchen set is also more than a collection of household items. It means mother can cook for children without exposing herself to the unnecessary risk. And now winter is approaching. Sudan is known as a country of extreme heat. That is true. Yet winter nights in Darfur can be bitterly cold, and the temperatures in northern Sudan can fall to single digits. For newborn babies or older persons, a blanket can be a life-saving item. Many families are approaching winter with shelters that are already damaged or barely standing. In Tawila, which now shelters nearly 900,000 people, heavy rains this summer destroyed hundreds of tents. Across displaced sites, two in five displaced families are living under plastic sheets that are half-built buildings. At the same time, El Nino had brought far less rain to Sudan this year, affecting harvesting across Darfur, Kordofan, and many other areas that are already impacted by the ongoing fighting. This time of the year, normally, food is supposed to be affordable. It is just after harvest, yet prices remain painfully high. In September alone, the price of staple grain rose by up to 40%, on top of already extremely high inflation. For a family that has lost everything, every Sudanese pound spent on food is money they cannot spend on a blanket or supplies or safe shelter. Even getting lifesaving assistance to those who need it has become increasingly dangerous. In this year alone, drones struck UNHCR vehicles, I mean trucks, twice. Our driver survived, but every emergency shelter for more than 1,300 families went up in flames near Tawila in April, and in July, In White Nile, 50 tons of blankets, sleeping mats, and solar lamps were destroyed. When those supplies were destroyed, families lost many more items. Women lost a measure of protection. Children lost warmth of blankets. And families who had already fled violence often multiple times lost the chance of having a roof over their heads. Despite these challenges, our teams, our drivers, our partners continue to work every day to reach the millions that are in need. The collective shelter response requires $179 million this year. So far, only 35% has been funded. I want to end with A story from Amira. Amira left Kumuk. Kumuk is in the Blue Nile, and she left on foot in the dark with her three children, nothing else. It took her days walking, traveling in crowded trucks to reach Damazin. When she arrived, the displacement sites were already full of families who had the same desperate, who had made the same desperate journey as she had done. "We had been sleeping under the sky," she told us. Then our teams brought her a tent. "That night, my children finally had a roof. It was nothing small," she added to us. Those words stayed with me. They stayed with me because many of us A roof is something we barely notice. For a mother who has fled violence with her children, it means safety, dignity, and the ability to sleep without fear. For millions of families in Sudan this winter, this modest hope remains out of reach. The difference between sleeping under a roof and sleeping under the open sky in winter in Sudan is not a question of technology. We know what these families need. We know how to help them. It is a question of access. It is a question of resource. And above all, it is a question of whether the international community chooses to act before this winter passes for the families who have already lost so much. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Let me now go to IOM and to Mohamed Refaat. Zoe, you want to start, or Yes?

Thank you very much, Alessandra. So from IOM, we have our chief of mission in Sudan, Dr. Mohamed Refaat, on the line, and he will speak to us about the 15.4 million people urgently needing emergency shelter, and noting that we have just put out a joint press release with UNHCR warning of the funding gap and the fact that funding is running out. Over to you, Dr. Mohammed Raafat.

Thanks a lot, colleagues. I hope you can hear me well. Can you hear me?

Go ahead.

Okay, thanks a lot. Maybe I would just try to complement what my colleague Abubakr mentioned. Let me start by saying that a year ago, if we would have gathered to speak about shelter, we would have focused on funding, but also on access constraints. But today, thanks to the effort that was made by all colleagues in the humanitarian country team and above and advocacy, I can definitely say we have more access and we can reach more people. And this means also that we can listen to the stories of their suffer. And this also mean that we are more accountable now, because we cannot say that we don't know, but we know, and we have met them, and we have heard their stories. I'm here with Abu Bakr from UNHCR, not only to talk about funding, but also to flag and get your attention on the massive displacement crisis that you are all aware about. But our estimate as IOM, as the agency collecting the data on displacement on the ground, that things might get worse, that numbers might start increasing again. The 8.6 million displaced in Sudan have been decreasing gradually because of the returns. But let's not confuse those who are returning, that they are returning to homes, because homes are not necessarily always available when they return back. Every humanitarian here on the ground, whether it's a women-led organization, Emergency room, NGO, UN agency is feeling the pressure. Last month, I have a colleague, international staff working in Darfur, who was helping an old woman, 70 years old, Noor, getting her tent after she had been displaced from Al Fashir for more than 10, 11 months. She's a grandmother for two kids. And she told him, "I wish I could offer you something to eat, but I have not eaten for one day." Same like her grandkids. Simply, he asked her about her family. And she told him, "I have three kids, a married daughter. She got killed with her husband. Another son, I lost him in Al-Fashir, and the father of the two kids whom I have, whom he left us. 10 months ago to go looking for a job. He never came back. Maybe he's now in Libya, maybe he's now in Egypt, maybe he's now in Chad trying to find a job opportunity. Or maybe he's one of those who have died on the route to the Mediterranean. Or maybe he's one of those who have made it to the Eastern European side. As we talk, Sudanese are becoming the number one nationality who's arriving in Europe through the Eastern Mediterranean side. So our failure in Sudan doesn't mean that it will stay in Sudan. If we are not able to provide aid in Sudan at scale, it means neighboring countries will be impacted, other countries will be impacted. We all know the numbers, so I will not waste a lot of time. We have here about 4.6 million outside of Sudan. We have here about 5.2 million who has already returned back. But we see them here in Khartoum, as me and Abu Bakr are here, and we see how many houses have been destroyed, how many homes have been looted, how many people have returned back to find no health, no electricity, no water, and they might have to leave again, and leave without any hope of returning back. Others are students on the move fleeing violence for a second or third time, and others, maybe around 3.5 million, who have been displaced for over 10 years in Sudan. People are looking for somewhere to stay safe. As Abu Bakr mentioned, a tent is not just a roof, it's protection. I can confirm this strongly with every woman, with every child we have met. One of the biggest hope for them is to feel safe. It's for a single mother to leave her kids in a place where she knows she can go and look for food or look for a job while her kids have somewhere to stay. The needs in Sudan is around 13.4 million people who urgently need emergency shelters in Sudan, but we don't have resources, so we decided to serve only one out of 10. But even within the one out of 10, we could reach only 900,000 people with what we have. Just this year, IOM was able to distribute more than 40,000 tents, but our warehouses are completely empty now. We are moving stocks, succeeding to get supplies into hard-to-reach areas, and supporting families who have been displaced or are returning home. Just yesterday, we had 16 trucks arriving in Darfur, but they were just the last that we had in our stocks. We are facing serious problems. Our supplies are running out. Ongoing conflicts and logistic challenges are already making it difficult to reach people. In effect, the challenge for more people to be in severe food shortage, severe malnutrition, might push people to move. And we are not ready and we don't have enough stocks to support them where they will go. We could soon reach a point where families desperately need shelter, but there is simply nothing left to get them. And I want to stress something. Shelter is not just about having a roof over your head. Again, it's not just a roof. It's about the dignity that we give to the families, to the kids. It's about the support that we provide for the elders. And it's about the hope that they can still have to stay where they are and try to maintain dignity until peace can reach back to Sudan. Our appeal today. We urgently need flexible funding to keep emergency supplies flowing and troop planish our stocks and reach families before it's too late. And we need the support to continue, because people are still fleeing and families are still returning to destroyed homes, and their needs are not just going away. After nearly four years of conflict, Sudanese families have already lost so much. We cannot undo what they have endured, but we can make sure that they have a safe place to sleep tonight. Thank you.

Thank you very much to both our speakers. I’ll open the floor to questions now. I don’t see any hand up. Thank you very much to both of you, then, and thanks to Eve for bringing the doctor and to Eugene, to bring Abubakar. And Eugene, I keep you on the podium because you have got another point of briefing, and this time it’s with Jana Birner, who comes in from – to us from Nairobi, who is your climate action expert. Thank you. So go ahead.

Thank you very much. So we are now turned to Nairobi, where I brought my colleague Yanna, UNHCR's climate action expert, who has just returned from Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya. During her visit, she met refugees who shared firsthand how the impacts of climate changes are affecting their daily lives and making an already difficult situation even more challenging. I hope that you guys all received our climate report as well as a press release that we share this morning. Yana will walk us through the latest data in the climate report, share some of the stories she heard on the ground. Yana, over to you.

Good morning, and thank you very much for joining us today. We are here today because we have launched a new report, which is showing that climate impacts are disproportionately affecting displaced communities across the globe. We have developed this report as part of our broader No Escape series. It's the third report in the row, and we've developed this together with partners, and most importantly, with refugee and community leaders globally, because we really want to center their voices, but also their challenges and their solutions directly. What the report is showing us is that 90 million forcibly displaced globally are now living by mid-2026 in countries that are highly or extremely exposed to climate-related hazards, including floods, droughts, and extreme heat. This includes countries like Ethiopia, Chad, Bangladesh, Pakistan, but also Sudan. And this is particularly concerning given the current El Niño situation, as our deputy representative has already pointed out. However, it's also important to note that exposure alone does not tell the whole story. Displacement means often losing the resources that people need to adapt to the impacts of climate change, like income, like shelter, or like social safety net. What the report also shows us is new data on extreme heat, thanks to Oregon State University and Montana State University. And we see that extreme heat is a particular concern for refugee settlements in sub-Saharan Africa, and then substantial increase in days with extreme heat until 2050. We know now that one in three refugee settlements across sub-Saharan Africa will see up to 100 days of extreme heat by 2050. And in some countries, like in Ethiopia, it could be up to more than 200 days, so more than half of every day in a year with extreme heat. What we mean with extreme heat is a combination of humidity and temperature to really reflect the devastating impacts on the human body. And we know that particularly women, pregnant women, children, and elderly people are affected. What the report is also showing us, and what we are also hearing from refugees themselves, is that climate impacts can be a contributing driver for displacement. But thanks to data from IDMC, we know that over the past 10 years, we saw 255 new internal displacements related to weather-related disasters, which is an equivalent of around 70,000 displacements per day. This is an increase of around 5% if we compare it to the average of the previous 10 decades until 2024. However, it's important to note that this also includes preemptive evacuations, and we're talking here about displacements for movements and not people. And I could see this firsthand, because it can also be people that have been forced to flee initially because of war or conflict that are displaced again. When I was in Kakuma, I could talk to refugee representatives who told me that they have been displaced again by devastating floods affecting the camps. And I could see that there's vocational training centers, there's schools, and there's health facilities at risk of being closed or already being closed because of the floods and erosions, which then undermines the long-term resilience of refugees even more. What the report and what Refugees Global are also telling us that climate impacts can undermine the sustainability of durable solutions. What that means is that UNHCR is estimating that by mid-2026, two in three refugee returnees returning to their countries have returned to climate-vulnerable countries. That means that the sustainability of this return can be undermined, and they might be at risk of onward displacement again, or they might be at risk of integrating locally. That means that we need to invest more in climate resilient recovery and in climate resilient reconstruction, including in water systems, but also in agricultural systems and livelihoods. Lastly, what I want to point out going into COP31, that we are not only seeing the vulnerability of refugees globally, we are also seeing that they are leading solutions on the front lines worldwide. This is ranging from climate smart agriculture to climate resilient shelter. We are seeing reforestation efforts. I saw in Kakuma how refugees are planting trees to green the camp again. So they are already leading these solutions, but they're not getting enough support. There's not enough climate finance reaching these places, and we need better inclusion to scale these solutions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Jana, for this briefing. Let me see if there are questions to you in the room or on the platform. No, I don’t see any. So thank you very much for informing us of this, and I hope that the COP31 will definitely go in that solution and look at the needs of these displaced people. Ricardo, we go back to Ukraine. It's important.

It's getting worse by the day.

Absolutely, yeah. Let's hear more about it, about children in Ukraine from you.

Thank you, Alessandra. Yes, sequencing from my last briefing on Tuesday. on the situation in Ukraine, which continues to aggravate daily. But just walking back a little bit, yesterday, UNICEF released a new report, Water Under Fire, documenting a deeply alarming global trend. Between 2021 and 2025, reported attacks damaging or destroying water systems tripled from fewer than 45 incidents across eight countries to more than 135 incidents across 15 countries. Attacks on water infrastructure, energy supplies, and the people who keep these systems running are depriving children of something fundamental to their survival: safe water. And that – and what this report describes globally, it has been unfolding in Ukraine, and now the situation is extremely dire. In late 2025, one in three children in Ukraine lived in homes without functioning water, supplies, or sewage systems. The report also documents power outages lasting 12 hours or more at a time that cut water and heating. Kyiv, a city of around 3 million people, including half million children, has experienced major disruptions to its water supply this week following attacks on energy infrastructure. On Tuesday, large parts of the city were left without running water, and again yesterday, power outages disrupted water supplies in every district of the capital, affecting homes, hospitals, schools, and kindergartens. This is how quickly a power crisis becomes a water crisis. When electricity fails, it is not just the lights that go out. Water stops flowing, heating systems fail, hospitals struggle to provide care, schools cannot function normally. And with winter approaching, the consequences for children and families could be devastating. Imagine being a parent in Kyiv, preparing for another freezing winter of war, not knowing whether your child will have safe water to drink, whether their school will remain open, and whether your home will stay warm. This is why UNICEF is working urgently to keep essential services running. In Kyiv, we have already provided 47 generators to the city's water utility and upgraded pumps at four major pumping stations. We are supporting alternative water sources, including boreholes and public water kiosks that can operate during power outages, which again continue to increase. And at the National Cancer Institute, UNICEF is helping establish a borehole reaching 300 meters underground, providing the hospital with an independent source of safe drinking water. Across Ukraine, UNICEF has helped more than 5 million people access safe water and sanitation services this year, while also supporting heating for more than 3 million people. But humanitarian assistance But humanitarian assistance cannot be a substitute for protecting civilian infrastructure. As our Water Under Fire report makes clear, the consequences of attacks on water and energy systems extend far beyond an immediate damage. They threaten children's health, education, safety, and survival. Children in Ukraine have already endured years of bombardments, displacement, and disrupted childhoods. They should not have to face another winter without the most basic services they need to survive. Attacks on civilian infrastructure must stop. Water and energy systems must be protected, and every child must have access to safe water, warmth, and essential services, even in war. Thank you, Alessandro.

Ms. Thank you very much, Ricardo. It’s so important to keep this in the light. Any question on Ukraine, on children? I don't see any hand up. So thank you. Is that a hand, Isabelle, or just a movement? Thank you very much. Thanks, Riccardo. And then I'd like to ask WHO to join me on the podium. Amna has brought a Dr. Sylvie Briand. Okay. Bonjour. Bienvenue. Amla, is it your first briefing?

No, it’s my third or fourth.

Third or fourth. Good. So I don’t need to introduce you.

I’m a veteran by now.

Dr. Briand, please go ahead.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much and good morning everyone. And after hearing the Those updates on migrants, on climate risk, and on kids in Ukraine. As a physician, I feel very sad for all of this because I know that the impact on health. And so today I would like to speak about something else. So it might be very minor compared to what we have heard before, but I think it's still an important topic that I would like to share with you. So WHO will be launching the movement of Together for Science and Health next week, and this movement is to preserve trust in science and shape the science of the future. So why should we care about trust in science? Because trust has consequences. When people trust science, they are more likely to use scientific knowledge to make decisions about their health. When policymakers trust science, evidence has a stronger place in public policy. And when societies value science, they are more willing to invest in research, discovery, and innovation. The opposite is also true. Less trust can mean less investment, Less investment means less scientific progress, and less trust in science can also mean less evidence in the policy that affect our lives. This matters because scientific progress alone is not enough. New drugs, vaccine, or diagnostic that people do not trust, cannot access, or do not understand will never achieve their full potential. and for instance, a new vaccine or a new treatment. The Wellcome Global Monitor 2026, titled Trust in Science Under Pressure, based on more than 140,000 people in 140 countries and areas, found that 70% of the people globally trust scientists, but it is on the decline since 2018. It also found significant gaps in people's knowledge of science and in perceptions of whether science benefit them. And today, the relationship between science and society is facing new pressures. First, science is moving extraordinary fast. Artificial intelligence, genomics, gene therapies, precision medicine, and other technologies are changing what is possible in health. But society does not always have the time or opportunity to understand and adapt to these changes. WHO's own framing recognizes this growing disconnect and the risks that the benefits of innovation are distributed unequally. If science advances but millions of people do not see its benefit in their own lives, we should not be surprised if they begin to question whom science is serving. Second, artificial intelligence is changing science itself. It's changing how knowledge is generated, analyzed, and communicated. This creates extraordinary opportunities in health, but it also raises new questions about transparency, accountability, and how we know what information to trust. And third, our information environment has been transformed. People have access to more health information than at any point in history, but more information does not necessarily mean better information. Misinformation and disinformation circulate at an unprecedented speed. Scientific findings compete for attention alongside opinions, rumors, commercial interest, and deliberately false information. And the result is often not simply disbelief, it's confusion. People ask, what should I believe? Who should I trust? How do I know whether this information is reliable? And this is why we believe we need to act now. On 10 November, coinciding with the World Science Day for Peace and Development, WHO is launching Together for Science and Health. A global movement bringing together scientists, policymakers, health professionals, communicators, civil society, young people, and communities. And the movement will work through three interconnected relationships: science and society, science and policy, science and communication. And the word "together" is important. We cannot rebuild trust simply by telling people, "Trust scientists." Trust has to be earned. It requires scientific integrity and transparency. It requires listening. It requires scientists engaging with community rather than communicating to them. It requires ensuring that the benefit of scientific progress reach everyone, not only those who can afford them. And we are proposing three domains for enhanced connection, science and society. need to come together closer so that people's needs and lived experience help shape scientific priorities. Science and policy need to be better connected so that decisions affecting people's health continue to be informed by the best available evidence. And science and communication needs to work differently so that people can access accurate, understandable, and trustworthy information and make informed decisions about their health. These are three pillars at the heart of the movement. For journalists, I think this is a particularly important role. Journalism and science share something fundamental. Both depend on facts, integrity, transparency, and the willingness to question. And both are essential to healthy societies. Ultimately, preserving trust in science is about much more than defending scientists or scientific institutions. It's about preserving our ability as society to distinguish evidence from falsehood, knowledge from opinions, and fact from manipulation. And it's about protecting trust in public institution, in credible media, in our collective ability to solve problems together. Because trust is, in many ways, the glue that holds societies together. And at a time when that glue is under strain, we need scientists, policymakers, journalists, communities, and citizens to work together. And this is why the movement is called Together for Science and Health. And that is our invitation on 10 November, because preserving trust in science is not only about protecting science, it's about protecting our capacity to build healthier, fairer, and more resilient society together, and to shape the science we would like to have in the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Brian. Sorry. Questions to WHO? I'll start with Agnès. Agnès Pedrero is AFP.

Oui, je vais poser la question en français si c'est possible. Vous m'entendez? Oui? Ok, donc je vais poser la question en français. J'ai deux questions. Une première question concernant la semaine prochaine. Concrètement, qu'est-ce qui va se passer au niveau de des personnes qui vont prendre la parole de la réunion, et puis plus globalement, quelles sont les ressources dont vous avez besoin et quels sont vos objectifs? Et puis une deuxième question, pour savoir concrètement dans la pratique, comment est-ce que vous allez mettre en œuvre ce mouvement? Qu'est-ce qu'il va faire? Par exemple, avec l'épidémie ou plutôt les flambées épidémiologiques qui se développent aux États-Unis de rougeole, avec plusieurs morts déjà, qu'est-ce que le mouvement peut concrètement faire face à ce type d'événements? Merci.

Oui, OK.

Comme vous voulez.

C'était bon, OK. Donc merci beaucoup pour votre question. Donc d'abord pour le lancement du mouvement, concrètement, en fait, nous allons avoir 12 événements qui vont se tenir le même jour en fonction de différentes time zones. Fus horaire, pardon. Et donc ça commencera par l'Asie, et puis on aura des événements en Afrique, au Moyen-Orient, et ensuite en Europe, et enfin aux États-Unis et en Amérique du Sud. L'objectif est de laisser à chaque région un peu aborder les thèmes qui leur paraissent les plus importants dans le cadre de la science et de la santé. Et donc on aura des événements qui porteront soit sur science et communication, et la mésinformation et désinformation, d'autres événements qui porteront sur plutôt comment dans un cadre d'innovation scientifique, on peut assurer un meilleur accès à tout le monde et plus d'équité. Donc ces différents événements seront sur notre site web et vous pourrez, et tous seront accessibles aussi en ligne après l'événement. pour la plupart. Certains événements, notamment à Paris, puisque les événements de lancement se feront dans le cadre du Forum de Paris sur la paix. Donc il y aura un événement avec notre directeur général et le président Macron pour faire de la Rend ce mouvement plus visible, et en même temps, il y aura aussi un laboratoire avec 30 jeunes qui vont en fait réfléchir à ce que pourrait être la science de demain. Just for this event, this Science Lab with the young people, we made an appeal on the Internet and we had more than 1200 applications to be part of this event. Unfortunately, our capacity, finally, of the room is limited, so we will only have 30 young people who will be able to participate, but the event will also be retransmitted. Pour l'instant, le mouvement, c'est essentiellement une plateforme. En fait, ce qui va se passer après le lancement, ça sera une plateforme qui permettra aux entités qui se seront affiliées au mouvement de contribuer au mouvement. Donc le mouvement a cinq valeurs qui sont donc le respect, l'intégrité, la rigueur scientifique, la responsabilité éthique et l'inclusion sociale. Et donc ces valeurs vont si l'entité adhère à ces valeurs, pourront adhérer au mouvement. Et donc l'objectif, c'est d'une part, avec cette plateforme, de rendre plus visibles toutes les activités que font ces entités pour ces valeurs et pour aussi la science que l'on souhaite, et enfin aussi de connecter différentes entités ensemble à travers différents continents, parce que par Par exemple, si on parle de science et communication, il y a des tas d'initiatives qui sont prises pour mieux communiquer la science, et on peut très bien partager les matériaux qu'on utilise, le matériel de communication, les vidéos, etc., pour que ce qui est fait par peut-être une ONG dans un continent puisse profiter à d'autres ONG dans d'autres continents avec une adaptation minimum. Donc être ensemble, ça nous permettra de faire plus, de faire mieux aussi, et de surtout connecter la science avec différentes communautés dans le monde et en quelque sorte démocratiser la science plus rapidement. Donc je pense que le problème il a, il a plusieurs facettes. C'est d'abord la mésinformation, c'est les gens sont mal informés sur les bénéfices des vaccins. Ils voient plus les risques que les bénéfices parce que en fait ces maladies ont disparu puisqu'on a vacciné tout le monde. Donc on voit plus la maladie, donc on pense que ça n'existe plus. Mais en fait, les maladies, comme on le voit, elles reviennent si on arrête la vaccination. Donc une meilleure information qui réponde vraiment aux inquiétudes des gens sur les effets secondaires, sur les moyens qu'on a aussi de réduire ces effets secondaires. But it also demands that the government make efforts to make vaccines available, because if it asks too much of people to vaccinate their children, they might not do it or do it too late, and at that point the children will be exposed to risk. And. comment dirais-je, plus informés que ce qu'on peut trouver, par exemple, sur des plateformes d'intelligence artificielle qui donnent des conseils grand public, mais qui ne sont pas forcément adaptés aux cas particuliers de différents patients.

Isabelle Saco, The Spanish News Agency.

Oui, bonjour. Lors de votre présentation, j'ai l'impression que vous avez en fait dressé un peu un diagnostic de la problématique qui vous amène à lancer ce mouvement. Mais est-ce que précisément, qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire? Parce que j'ai l'impression que beaucoup des choses qu'on fait avec beaucoup d'efforts restent au niveau des experts. Et puis je pense que l'idée, c'est vraiment de de contrecarrer la désinformation, comme vous avez dit, d'établir ou reconstruire une confiance qui est quelque part, pour plusieurs raisons, perdue dans la science. Et puis aussi parce qu'il y a une abondance extrêmement, enfin, une abondance d'informations qui nous confond, en fait, surtout aux jeunes et personnes âgées aussi. Donc, ma question est comment est-ce que vous pouvez, comme vous avez dit, démocratiser cette plateforme, ces informations et les bénéfices de ce mouvement? Et puis, est-ce que vous pouvez donner un autre exemple à part le vaccin de Field, où la science est mise en épreuve? par rapport en face de la désinformation et ou des gens qui veulent vraiment, qui ont des positions anti-scientifiques, si je peux dire comme ça. Merci.

Oui, je peux encore répondre en français. Merci beaucoup pour cette question qui, effectivement, je crois que c'est vrai, on est tous face à un phénomène d'abord qui débute. Je veux dire, la perte de confiance est minime puisque 72% encore des personnes croient en la science. Je pense que c'est important. Par contre, ce qui est très préoccupant, c'est que dans le monitor du Wellcome Trust, c'est qu'ils voient qu'en fait la perte de confiance est plus importante dans certaines communautés, et en particulier les communautés qui ont le moins accès aux bénéfices de la science. Donc en fait, on voit que dans le domaine de la santé, il y a une l'iniquité grandit. But in fact, this problem of mistrust towards science will aggravate these inequalities. And so that's why it's important to do something now, because knowing that, for example, IA and misinformation, disinformation on social media, is probably a phenomenon that won't be resolved right away. So it's very important that we can act very quickly. Alors, quelles sont les solutions? Je pense que c'est un des objectifs de ce mouvement, c'est trouver des solutions ensemble. Parce qu'on voit bien qu'il n'y a pas une solution pour tout le monde, que les problèmes sont différents dans différents pays, en fonction du contexte économique, social, politique. Et donc on ne peut pas avoir une taille unique. Il faut qu'on arrive à trouver des solutions qui s'adaptent au contexte, mais on peut aussi échanger des solutions et si ça a fonctionné quelque on peut peut-être, sans copier-coller immédiatement, mais au moins s'inspirer de ça et faire quelque chose d'approchant dans un autre contexte. Donc, parmi les solutions qu'on envisage déjà dès maintenant, c'est d'une part former les professionnels de santé, parce que beaucoup de professionnels sont très occupés, sont d'abord en trop petit nombre, enfin, on manque de professionnels de santé, donc ils n'ont pas trop le temps, en fait, de s'informer et d'être au top. des nouvelles innovations scientifiques, donc les former, les aider à communiquer avec leurs patients pour que les patients aient une information la plus fiable possible. Parce qu'on a vu que les professionnels de santé restent encore une source très crédible d'information et la population a une grande confiance dans les professionnels de santé, les utiliser comme messagers de confiance pour ça. L'autre chose qu'on pense faire aussi, c'est accréditer certaines certains centres scientifiques. Donc pas accréditer le résultat de leurs recherches, mais accréditer les processus par lesquels ils font la recherche pour s'assurer que le processus de production de résultats scientifiques est le plus fiable possible, transparent, et que les méthodes utilisées aussi puissent être confrontées et vérifiées pour s'assurer que les résultats vraiment sont fiables. Ensuite, sur la communication, je pense que c'est là où je pense qu'on a beaucoup de progrès à faire. La science, c'est un domaine complexe, et la façon dont la plupart des autorités sanitaires ont communiqué sur la santé dans ces dernières années, c'était peut-être pas optimal. Donc il faut aussi qu'on arrive à mieux communiquer dans le domaine de la santé, ce qui passera certainement beaucoup plus par justement là utiliser le bénéfice de l'intelligence artificielle pour avoir une meilleure écoute sociale, mieux comprendre ce qui se passe sur les réseaux sociaux, mieux comprendre quelles sont les questions que les gens se posent à propos de la santé pour pouvoir avoir des réponses adaptées à leurs questions et pas un message formaté à l'avance. Et enfin, un autre exemple sur la science mise en épreuve, je pense que par exemple sur si vous voulez par exemple les Les régimes alimentaires, il y a tout sur Internet et surtout des gens qui essayent de promouvoir peut-être pas des nouveaux médicaments, mais des nouveaux produits qui héritaient des connaissances anciennes qui pourront soudainement complètement révolutionner ce que vous mangez et votre poids. Bon, il y a beaucoup de choses qui ne sont pas prouvées par la science. and which are more arguments for business than anything else. Thank you very much.

Emanuele Berro, Reuters.

Yes, good morning. Can you hear me?

We can.

So sorry for, I've not been able to raise my hand before, but my question is actually about Sudan. Is someone from IOM still around?

Yes, no, no, I think they've gone, sorry. No, no. Do you have a question also for WHO?

No, just want to listen.

Okay, sorry. John Zarocostas, The Lancet.

Yes, good morning, Sylvie. Interesting exposé there. I would like to have your views on the democratization of science and policies. Does that also mean the WHO will, in the future, not require for special scientific meetings for scientists participating to sign non-disclosure clauses? Thank you.

Thanks, John, for your question. I'm not sure I understand it fully, but for us, what means democratization is more first to ask society about their needs, in health, so that research is driven by these needs and not research only driven by the interest of scientists. And secondly, when results are to be implemented, also involve the society in looking at better ways to implement those things. So with regard to WHO processes, there will be no changes. What we want, we will still ensure that our guidelines and our recommendation are strictly evidence-based and also ensuring very close dialogue with policymakers at country level to make sure that the results we are providing and the recommendations we are providing are well understood and well implemented.

I think John wants to clarify.

Okay, sorry.

I see his hand is up again. John.

Just to clarify, Sylvie, you called during the COVID outbreak. The WHO hosted a meeting of prominent scientists from around the world, but many complained at the time that they were forced to sign a non-disclosure clause. Is that rule still in place? Thank you.

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood. I think it's COVID was a very specific situation, and so I think this is not necessarily a rule that applies to any situation, but what WHO will continue to do is certainly to convene scientists around the world when it's needed.

Thank you very much. Do you have a follow-up?

Mazi Agnes. Quelle est votre appréciation de la situation actuellement? Et est-ce que le mouvement qui va être lancé peut aller à la rencontre des personnes, peut discuter avec les autorités américaines? Comment est-ce que ça va se passer? Merci.

Pour l'instant, je ne peux pas trop vous dire parce que le mouvement n'a pas commencé, mais on a déjà presque 300 entités qui sont affiliées et certaines sont aux États-Unis. Donc nous verrons après comment ces institutions ou ces universités vont faire face à cette situation et quelles solutions elles vont trouver dans le contexte des États-Unis à

Isabelle, do you have a follow-up?

Yes, two questions. The first, I don't know, I was asking if you think of an example, like we had the example of the vaccine, other examples that show how dangerous misinformation and lack of confidence in science are in general for communities, for societies. I also think about Ebola, for example, I think it's an example. Mais peut-être vous pensez à d'autres exemples qui seront utiles. Et puis, est-ce que l'OMS pense que ou qu'est-ce que vous pensez, peut-être comme scientifique que vous êtes? Est-ce qu'il serait utile de commencer vraiment un dialogue avec les plateformes digitales sur la nécessité d'établir des régulations dans les réseaux sociaux pour contrecarrer les désinformations dans le domaine de la santé et de la science? Merci.

Yes, on the examples, Ebola is a clear example of when communities do not trust the decisions that are made, which are based on scientific data. Obviously, the riposte to the epidemic does not work. We have seen this in many epidemics, even with COVID, it was also a problem, the mistrust. In the decisions that are taken, and even for COVID, we have scientific data there that shows that in the countries where there was the most mistrust, in fact, there was a higher mortality rate related to COVID, and this difference can go up to 40% of surmortality related to a lack of confidence. C'est pour ça que c'est un problème qui nous touché particulièrement et qu'on veut faire quelque chose à ce propos. Donc la deuxième partie de votre question sur les régulations, bien entendu, et on est en discussion et en dialogue avec les plateformes parce qu'une partie de la mésinformation est liée aussi aux algorithmes qui sont utilisés, qui sont des algorithmes qui ont été développés à des fins commerciales et pas à des fins de santé publique. And so it's very important to discuss with them to try to better understand how we can, in all cases, ensure that people have access to reliable information. Because the problem with these algorithms is that it tends to orient people more and more towards information that is not verified and which can also be completely false. et ça les enferme en quelque sorte dans cette bulle de désinformation. De plus, on voit bien qu'il y a un problème avec les jeunes qui ont donc leur source majeure d'information et donc sur les réseaux sociaux, et qu'une étude récente faite par exemple au Royaume-Uni montre qu'un jeune sur cinq déjà regrette des décisions de santé qu'ils ont prises basées sur des informations qu'ils avaient sur les réseaux sociaux. Donc ils se rendent compte que ça peut aussi faire du tort à leur santé, et ils regrettent. Mais qu'est-ce qu'on leur offre d'autre? Et donc c'est pour ça, je pense, que le mouvement peut être plus puissant, parce qu'il peut mobiliser la société civile, les organisations de jeunes. À l'OMS, nous avons un conseil de jeunes aussi. Ils sont très impliqués dans cette problématique et vont nous aider à trouver des bonnes solutions pour le futur. Merci.

Thank you. Are there any other questions? I don't see any. So, thank you very much. Good luck. I don't know if you want to show the.

I only have two, but.

No, but just for the cameras, like that. I think it's very beautiful. Thank you very much for this presentation of this new initiative. Thank you, Amna, for bringing the doctor to us. I have only a few other announcements for you. First of all, let me remind you of the press conference this afternoon at 2:30. That is on the State of Climate 2026 update. issued by WMO, and that will be, which is under embargo until the 9th of November at 8:30. And so you'll have Celeste Sauro, the Secretary General of WMO, and John Kennedy, the WMO Head of Climate Information, who will give you the press conference this afternoon, as I said, at 2:30. Just to remind you that the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights is reviewing today the report of Austria. And at 3:00 PM in Room 16, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights will hold a joint event to mark the 60th anniversary of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The colleagues at WIPO have asked me to inform you that next week, WIPO will be holding its first ever Global Forum on Intellectual Property and AI. The inaugural global forum will cover AI-related legal and policy issues across the full spectrum of IP rights, including patents, copyright, trademarks, designs, trade secrets, and others. More broadly, it will explore AI's impact on IP, intellectual property, innovation, and creativity. If you have questions, you can contact Ed Harris, and please feel free to attend in person next Monday and Tuesday, the event at WIPO. And last but not least, on Wednesday, across the street, there will be the World Investment Conference, which is not a UN event. It's a big event, but not particularly a UN event. However, I wanted to flag that on 11th, so in the framework of this conference, at 9:00, there will be a panel called on the title is Investing in Sports for a Healthier Future. This panel will give us the opportunity to speak about football for the goals. that, as you surely know, is the department, our department, Department of Global Communication Initiative, to show how we can achieve SDGs through sports and also, and in particular, the health issue. So you are cordially invited to come and listen to the discussion. We will have some sports people and the European Football Club Federation that will manage the event. I think I’ve told you everything I had. Soon we have been asked also for the – for information on the review conference of the Convention on Weapons. The media advisory will be with you very, very soon. And you have all the information about the media opportunities at this very important conference, which is starting not next week, but the week after in Geneva at the Palais. So I think if you don't have other questions for me, I wish you a very good weekend, and I'll see you next week. Thank you.