 Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, thank you very much for coming. And before starting, I'd like to say that the main objective of this visit is for me to express to the Irish government and the Irish people our deep gratitude and appreciation for the very strong support we are having in our activities worldwide from the Irish government and Irish aid. A support that is more necessary than never, but a support that comes from a country. I'm a Portuguese. I can understand it perfectly. That is having enormous financial problems and difficulties and struggling to recover from a very complex financial crisis. So I think it's important to say that the support we get from Ireland is a value that is much bigger when we compare with other countries that are facing a much less dramatic financial situation. I want to say, as I said, to the Irish government, but also to the Irish people. Thank you. Now, looking at the new challenges of forced displacement in the world, I would like to briefly say a few words about three aspects. First, unpredictability as the norm of the present times. Second, the shrinking of humanitarian space in relation to support to the people we need when moving. And third, what are the trends that we can witness in relation to the causes of displacement in the near future? So first, unpredictability. If you look at today's world, we have four acute refugee crises, Syria, Mali, Sudan, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Today, people crossing borders fleeing conflict in these four situations. At the same time, last year, if you remember, we had Côte d'Ivoire, the Horn of Africa, Libya, and Yemen. And the old situations have not been solved. Afghanistan is there, Somalia is there, Colombia is there. And so the international community, unfortunately, is showing a very limited capacity to prevent conflict and an even more limited capacity to solve timely the conflicts that exist. What we are witnessing is a multiplication of new crises and the persistence, the resilience of the old crises that remain, of the chronic situations that remain. When I started my political activities, we lived in the bipolar world. And when I was in office, we lived in the climax of the unipolar world, the US as the hyperpower. Now, in those periods, there was not a global governance system, much less a democratic one. But there were clear power relations. And if you look at today's world, it's no longer bipolar. It's no longer unipolar. But it's not yet structured as a multipolar world. There is no global governance system. But the power relations became unclear. And so things happen. And there is no respect, if I may say it in a rather, I mean, a light way. And actors develop initiatives in ways that are totally unpredictable. Conflicts emerge. Situations of social unrest multiply. And there is very little capacity to control the development of these events. So if you ask me, what will the next crisis be, I don't know. But I know that there will be new crises probably before the end of the year or in the beginning of next year. And the capacity of the international community to minimize the impact of those crises has been considerably limited. And this, of course, represents for humanitarian actors an enormous challenge. Because we have to increase enormously our activity dealing with the emergencies that we have to face, but also dealing with the old problems that were not solved and require commitment to help people to fight solutions for them, in a moment in which resources are, of course, also stretched because of the difficult financial situation that exists in many countries around the world and in many of the traditional donors. So in an unpredictable situation with a multiplication of challenges and with a limited capacity to respond, those that flee conflict today see themselves in a situation in which the capacity of the international system to respond to their needs is considerably under stress. I believe that we have been able to do what we try to do, but I feel that we would need to do much more, to be fully able to respond to the most dramatic needs of those forced to flee in the different unpredictable situations that are multiplying around the world. The second dimension I would like to mention is related to the shrinking of humanitarian space. If one looks at many situations we are facing, the level of insecurity is also becoming more unpredictable. In the past conflicts were intended to be clear. There were two states fighting each other or one government under the pressure of a rebel movement. And I remember going to Kilinochi to speak to the Tamil Tigers and going to Colombo to speak with the government and to negotiate the capacity for UNHCR to deliver support in the areas controlled by the two entities before the last events that led to the elimination of the Tamil Tigers. But if you go to many of the scenarios you face today, for instance, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, you have a national army. Sometimes it's the worst perpetrator of violation of human rights. You have international forces. And then you have ethnic militias. You have political militias. In some other areas you have religious militias. You have groups linked to not in the Democratic Republic of Congo but provinces in northern Mali, groups links to global terrorist organizations. And then you have bandits. And sometimes you can be a bandit in the morning and a member of a militia in the afternoon. And it's very difficult to have interlocutors to discuss how humanitarian aid can be delivered. Even if you abide and you need to abide by the principles of impartiality and neutrality and independence, the problem is who are the actors that will respect those principles? For some of them, the fact you are an humanitarian might make you a target. And for others, they just have no way to control whatever their elements do because they are just gangsters operating in an area to make profit out of the problems that exist in that same area. So higher levels of insecurity and less predictable insecurity. But also shrinking of humanitarian space when governments decide to restrict the excess of humanitarian actors because they don't want witnesses in some areas where, for instance, more dramatic violations of human rights are being perpetrated. And we all remember the stories about Darfur and we all remember the difficulties in the past about going when the Cyclone Nargis occurred, how difficult it was to negotiate excess to those areas. And if you look into different parts of the world, you see that in many regions, you have a lot of problems in getting permission from governments to allow you to operate in some areas. Again, the humanitarian space shrinks and the capacity to deliver is constrained. And then I would say that globally, if to simplify, the responsibility to protect agenda or the human rights agenda in general has been losing ground to the National Sovereignty Agenda. And if you look at discussions in the Security Council and the Paralyzer Security Council is a good demonstration of that. And again, that has an impact on the restriction of a humanitarian excess to many areas in the world. Obviously with people suffering and with the meditarians not being able to be present, look at Northern Mali at the present moment. That means not only a huge frustration for us, but a dramatic aggravation of the living conditions of the people we care for. Third element I would like to introduce is how can we see the near future in relation to the causes of forced displacement? Now UNHCR's mandate is clear. It is related to refugees according to the 51 convention, which means that people that are victims of a well-founded fear of persecution, if you want a broader definition that some will fully accept, others will relegate to subsidiary protection, people, victim of conflict or persecution, let us say. But we see more and more that it is difficult to distinguish what is a traditional pattern of migration of someone that makes a choice to move from one country to another, aiming at a better life. And a refugee that moves from one country to another because it's no longer possible to live in the first country for political or other sources of persecution, cultural, religious or others. This distinction that was very clear in the past is becoming blurred. When you see a boat crossing from Libya into Lampedusa or from Obok in Djibouti or from Bossasso in Somalia into Yemen, you might find people that it is difficult to know exactly why they are moving. Is the Somali moving because of the war? Is the Somali moving because of hunger last year during the summer? The reasons are becoming blurred. And I believe that what we are witnessing today is a growing interrelation of a number of megatrends. The population growth. We are now 7 billion, we will be 9 billion, I think, in 2050, climate change, probably the defining factor of our times. I don't like to use the expression climate refugees because climate change is a complex issue that interrelates with others. And when we see the drought in the Sahel, it's not a new thing. There has been drought in the Sahel since we remember. But there was in 2005, there was in 2010, or there is in 2012. And I mean, we see an amplification of natural disasters and many other factors. And we see climate change as an accelerator of a certain number of other elements. And then we have food insecurity, water scarcity, urbanization, and all these megatrends are getting more and more interrelated. And their impact is becoming more and more complex. Sometimes they are linked to problems of security or of political developments. Urbanization plus food insecurity, rising prices of food is a source of social instability. Lack of water or scarcity of water in an area can be a complicating factor in the relations between farmers and the herders or in the conflict between two countries. For instance, the complex relationship between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan about water at the present moment. And so all these factors, sometimes related to conflict, sometimes by themselves, are forcing more and more people to flee. Now, if conflict is in between, we can say they are refugees according to a legal definition. But if it is because of natural disasters or because of an environment degradation that totally makes life impossible in a certain area, they have no legal definition, but they are really forced to flee. They are not also the economic migrant, the traditional economic migrant of the past. And I think that Ireland in its history has a very clear situation of people forced to flee with a famine. They didn't leave the country because they wanted to have a better life. They left the country because there was no other way because life became impossible. And this is happening more and more in today's world. And there is no way for the international community to be prepared to respond to these challenges. And there are protection gaps, but there are also other very complex implications in societies and international relations. Now, two countries, Norway and Switzerland with the cooperation of a number of others and hopefully Ireland will join have launched the so-called Nansen initiative and they are aiming at a global debate on the challenges of forced displacement caused by factors that are not directly linked to the 51 convention and trying to find forms of international cooperation or eventually other ways of responding to these and addressing the protection gaps and other problems that these new situations raise. Again, we are clearly sticking to our mandate. We don't want UNHCR's mandate to be enlarged. We are not fighting for that, but we believe that this debate is very important and we believe the international community needs to be prepared to face what is a combination of factors in a world that is smaller and smaller in which for the first time there are physical limitations to economic growth and in which the people on the move will be more and more a defining factor of all times.