 Hwn yn ei wneud yn gweithio'r hwn o f featuring o'r cyffredinol a dwi'n rhoi holl y cyffredinol cyffredinol Ac rydyn ni'n eu cyffredinol fod lively a'r cyffredinol A sgwpwn i'r cyffredinol yn mynd i adroddwy Fleir A mi'n dweud, mae'n ddweud am hyn o fadechol Yng ngrebbech wedi'ch gweithio'r cyffredinol Mae'n ddweud yn y ffordd dyeddi'n gweithio'r cyffredinol Cymdeithasol yn iaeth i yw gan bob yhdecf i ddweud o bwysig yw'r fflesiwn ar y dyfynod yn y tîm yn y gweithio eich gweithio. Felly oes ymogi am hynny ymwysig am ymolio? Yn mynd i'n gwybod, ddau'n ddweud. Mae hynny'n gweithio'n gweithio yn y gweithio ymolio, ddau'n gweithio. Yn y gweithfodol i ymolio, mae'r amlodau yw Thomas Sama. Yn ychydig fod yw'r llwyster dros gyfan, hefyd o'r Unifredig Ymolio Hŷl-Synchi yn yr ysgolig. Ac rwy'n rhoi ydych chi'n cysylltu i Michelle a Sandiola. First, I think we are very, or I am personally very happy to have Michelle here. I mean she is fresh from the United Nations in New York and I see her here as some sort of a representative or the voice of the UN Secretary-General. Now, Michelle, my question to you is that during the UN summit I followed the discussion of two presidents, two head of states at the Migration Summit. The president of my country, Paul Bia, who spoke extensively about the refugee situation in Cameroon because in Cameroon at our region we have war going on caused by Boko Haram. So, refugees from the Central African Republic where there is crisis, they are in Cameroon over 200,000 refugees from Nigeria fleeing from Boko Haram. We know about the 200 girls who were abducted, they are in Cameroon from Chad and from other countries so Cameroon is facing a big refugee problem. So our president spoke about that at the UN and he made mention of the fact that a lot of assistance and cooperation is needed from other countries to solve this problem. The next president I followed up his speech and discussion extensively was the president of Turkey. The president of Turkey talked about how there are a lot of Syrian refugees in Turkey and that the European Union made promises that they were going to give Turkey some money, some aid to fight this refugee situation from Syria, but that nothing has been done and that there is supposed to be more commitment. Now my question is, Michelle just said that the heads of states took a commitment to address the refugee problem with a new approach. My question is what is there going to be new in terms of the approach to cut the refugee problem? Are the rich countries going to be more committed in fighting this problem? The poor countries or the countries from the south, where the refugees most of them are coming from, I think some of them are willing to cooperate, but they need a lot of assistance from the rich countries. Even within Europe, many of the countries along the Mediterranean like Greece are suffering a lot from the refugee problems and at times it's like the other European countries that are far away from the Mediterranean. They say that's not our problem, that's not our problem and Greece and Italy with Lampedusa are very close by in Italy, they are suffering a lot from the problem. So what kind of commitment do we think is going to bring a new approach and since Michelle is from the UN, does Michelle think that in the next coming years things are going to change for good? That's my question for Michelle. My question for Sandra is that in terms of refugees that have been displaced by, for example, natural disasters, it happened in Japan and Indonesia and other countries, we saw it. Most of the time when this happens, the countries of the north like the USA, Canada and France, they send for their citizens to be repatriated. Now what happens to those citizens who are not able to be repatriated because maybe they come from the south where they don't have any support for repatriation? Who is responsible for repatriating them? Who is responsible to protect their rights? If we look around very well today we would see that people in vulnerable situations do not even have any right. So what is the current situation? Thank you. Thank you very much indeed to excellent questions and I'm going to pass them straight over to our two guest speakers, Michelle. Thank you very much Thomas for both of your questions. Let me start with your second one first and Sandra may want to add to that. I think certainly IOM's experience not only with Libya but now with Yemen is that there's a recognition that not all countries have the ability to evacuate or repatriate their nationals and that there needs to be international support for that. And fortunately donors are coming forward when governments ask IOM to help assist, get their nationals to safety. We've been able to raise donor funding to support that both from the central UN's emergency fund but also as a result of the Libya crisis IOM created its own migration emergency funding mechanism precisely for that purpose because you can't wait for donors to come forward. When you're talking about people's lives you need to act right away and the idea was to create a standing funding mechanism. So any request that came in for repatriation or evacuation could be addressed immediately and that is what's happening in Yemen now and in some of the other situations. We need to make sure that it's more widely known and that it's able to operate. In Yemen we are able to evacuate and repatriate but only between bombings. So only when we get notice from the authorities that there's a cessation of the bombings and we'll have a two hour window to quickly go in, pull people out and then try to get them to a safe place for all. So it's, there's still a long way to go on that. Yeah, please go ahead. Just a few other thoughts on that. I talked about the fact that there are four stakeholders that are the target of these guidelines and it's for reasons like this that we've targeted the guidelines to four separate stakeholders. So you talked about rich countries being able to evacuate their own citizens and others who have less resources not being able to do it. But there are examples in the context of Libya, in the context of Japan where charter planes that have been used by developed countries also taking evacuating citizens of other countries as well. So in addition to IOM being enlisted to assist to evacuate citizens, some states have assisted citizens within their region to evacuate as well. And so in that context, the point is that it's meant to be a collective response. So where certain states or other stakeholders don't have the resources to be able to do it themselves, there should be others who can step in and assist. Thank you, Sandra. And coming, Thomas, to your first question, I think the key point of the summit was addressed to precisely what you were getting at was to create a sense of solidarity and genuine collective commitment to addressing large movements of refugees and migrants and recognizing that as the special representative secretary general and international migration, Peter Southerline often said that right now what we have is a situation where proximity determines responsibility. But really these issues are global issues and the full international community needs to be brought to bear to work on them and not just leave which countries surround a country in crisis as the ones who bear the responsibility. And I think UNHCR has a statistic where they said 86% of the world's refugees are hosted by developing countries and their appeals for funding and support and even more importantly longer term solutions have gone not met. So one of the key aspects of this summit was to try to generate a commitment from the outset of a refugee crisis of the development community, including the international financial institutions like the World Bank, to provide immediate assistance to the hosting countries, to enhance their capacities, to relieve some of the burden and to really create more of a sense of burden sharing. Both at the initial phase but obviously also when situations become protracted and not leave people languishing in refugee camps or in uncertain status for 20, 30 years, which unfortunately is the case in too many situations. On the migration question, so that's really what it's about and there's something that came out of the summit called the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework with a view toward developing a global compact on refugees based on a notion of responsibility sharing and really saying this is a collective responsibility of the international community. The Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework was adopted, it looks at all phases of refugee issues and measures that can and must be taken. The day after the UN summit, President Obama held a summit specifically on responsibility sharing for refugees co-hosted by several other governments in the UN that was a specific summit designed to secure concrete pledges of enhanced assistance, whether it's money to go to the countries that are hosting refugees or more resettlement spaces for longer term refugee populations to move into countries willing to take them or a whole host of measures but concrete ones. I think we've still got a long way to go on making genuine solidarity and responsibility sharing the way of the world, but that's really precisely what's necessary. Thank you very much. Any further questions and comments? The gentleman in front of me and then we'll come to the gentleman on my left. Hi, my name is Ryddi Cohnings. I'm in charge of policy for humanitarian emergencies at the World Health Organization in Geneva. First of all I would like to welcome IOM to the UN family. I think it's a great addition and we look forward to working together on a number of issues. My question is on the guidelines and of course it's related to health because that's one of the things if you ask migrants or refugees what are their concerns. Health usually is in the top three of what they are concerned about yet the guidelines remain surprisingly mum on the topic and so issues like the right to health or essential packages of services or issues like that. Are they wiped under the carpet or what's the view of IOM on this and how does the IOM see to address what we think is quite an important issue. Can you send Julie, you're on the spot. You know my husband works for the World Health Organization so obviously I do understand those concerns. You get a near fall about this every day I presume. You know what we try to do with the guidelines is to not reiterate existing frameworks, guidelines and response systems that are already accepted and to really try and articulate and highlight the types of specific vulnerabilities and needs that migrants have and to then attune states and other stakeholders thinking towards understanding some of the unique vulnerabilities that migrants face. So in the context of a crisis anyone who is affected may have health concerns or gender related concerns or concerns around accessing basic subsistence and emergency aid and all of those issues are captured under guideline 12 which is talking about providing basic assistance without discrimination. But we mention health, we mention sanitation, we mention water in the context of specific practices that may have been implemented and the assistance that people need in the context of crisis are meant to be captured under that guideline because what we try to do is not pull out things that migrants may need in a similar way to citizens but to highlight things that need to be done differentially for migrants. So the point is that migrants may not know the language of a host community or a host country and that can create something of a unique barrier and constraints for migrants in terms of their ability to be resilient in the context of a crisis. Sometimes the disaster response frameworks or the emergency response frameworks in a country really focus on citizens and don't take into account that some migrants may be in an irregular situation. So if those frameworks better incorporated the presence and the specific kind of vulnerabilities if migrants, well that's when responses are going to be improved. So I hope you don't think that we didn't think about health, we absolutely did and those issues come up a lot in the types of practices that you'll find in the repository and in the types of generic practices that have been included but in terms of the principles and the guidelines it was really trying to highlight the unique factors that make them vulnerable. Michele. Very briefly just on IOM and not the guidelines but the migrant health agenda is a really huge, a hugely important one and I think as an organization you probably know we have a team dedicated to migrant health related issues and they are focusing around the world about recognizing that certainly when people move they don't all have the same access to health and to quality health and that their experience of health will be determined by a host of social factors that make their health needs different and there need to be migrant sensitive health practices and policies where people go and so one of the and we're certainly partnering very closely with WHO on the migrant health agenda and not with a view to stop people from moving because of health related issues because I mean I think that historically that had been the way it was understood to try to prevent the transmission of disease by stopping the movement of people across borders while recognizing now that that's just not realistic people will move across borders diseases will transfer across and the real issue is preparing systems for the capacity to address mobile populations and their particular needs so that's a major major agenda and I actually think that will play out in the context of the global compact on migration will have to be dedicated attention to that issue. Thank you very much. I'm going to turn to the gentleman right in front of me. I'm also just going to assist as a session dedicated to the work and activities of IOM. We're fortunate enough to have the representative of IOM for Finland with us this afternoon. I'd like to ask him to think about whether he wants to add anything as to how the current migration situation is impinging upon Finland and the Nordic region has it affected you substantively and if so how and what is the IOM response but before inviting you to take the floor I'll give the floor to our gentleman in the front. Good afternoon everyone. Thank you Jeff. Thank you Michelle. Thank you Sanjula. When you open the session a statement caught my attention and sorry I am Jane Ange. I am from originally from Cameroon. I've lived in Finland for about 10 years. I was trained in Helsinki in social services and I work with unaccompanied minors. I've worked with them for about nine years and currently I'm taking a master's program in educational leadership. Two statements caught my attention this afternoon. First you started by saying Jeff that as we sit in the comfort of this room people are drowning now in the sea. Some are under fire right now and are facing challenges that are unimaginable. The second statement that caught my attention from Michelle was she's looking forward to working with us. I've had first hand experience with migrants here in Finland and Sanjula made a point about human rights recognition for human potentials and respect for values. One of the values and the guidelines, the principles if I understood correctly. So they say in every rule there is an exception. Let's say the rule is we go to a seminar, we come up with reports, we publish journals and so on and so forth. I'm asking Michelle, I'm asking Jeff, could you use this opportunity as an exception when you said you're looking forward to working with us. I for one am very interested in working with you. I've put my application in the UN website and you know the bureaucracy, it's been fruitless. I see this as an opportunity for me to practice and apply the skills that I've gained to reach down to human lives and save them in a concrete way. Is there room for me to do something with you? Thank you very much. I've got to confess I've spent most of my career writing reports that I'm not sure anybody has ever read let alone acted upon. But I'm going to avoid the question and pass it on to Michelle and then I'm going to invite our IOM representative here in Helsinki to say a few words. Thank you very much, Dave, for engaging and I'm delighted to hear about your commitment here. One of the things that we are trying to do at IOM is how to create more meaningful partnerships and particularly with civil society organizations and create networks. We have our website where vacancy notices are posted by all means, keep an eye on those, but we're never going to have nearly enough job openings to be able to bring in as many people as we would like to. So we need to find other ways to collaborate as well. We have just had a new head of research join IOM at headquarters and she's in the process of reaching out to look at creating networks. And to see who's doing what around the world and how to really build synergies there. I'm happy to give you her name and put you in contact after this. Cimo, our head of office here in Helsinki will be taking the floor in a moment may be able to discuss with you opportunities for engagement here. But I do think this is one of our key challenges moving forward is is how do we cultivate a community of interest and give meaningful opportunities to participate. IOM has been running civil society consultations for a few years and but we recognize that they're necessarily limited by people who can fund their own way to come to Geneva to participate. We need to maybe utilize technology as a way to be able to bring in more people and create more platforms for dialogue discussion and otherwise. My last point is related to that. I mean, with the MICIC initiative, as Asanjala mentioned, we created this repository of practices. Part of the repository is drawn from submissions that people made to the website. So we have created a part that says share your experience, share your practice so that people can give their ideas and suggestions for what could be done or is being done and needs to be shared more broadly. I think we need to use modern technology as a way to create more of a voice and more opportunities for real engagement and exchange. Thanks. Thank you very much. Let me turn to the IOM representative here in Helsinki. Finland is a relatively small country. It's geographically quite a long way from the world's hotspots. So how has Finland and Helsinki and the Nordic region in general been affected by what many people are calling the current migration crisis? Thank you. Okay, thanks. Yes, my name is Simo Korn and I'm the head of IOM office here in Helsinki, Finland. Certainly, like you said, Finland has been until recently pretty much away from the big migration flows and we haven't traditionally been in any large immigration country as such. And then last year when we were faced with about nine-fold increase in asylum seekers, asylum implications, the country went of course kind of crazy. That took everybody by surprise. It was until still in the spring when people were observing what is happening in Europe and so on elsewhere that they will never come to this way. This far was the reaction, almost quoting some counterparts that we also discussed and tried to sound out their preparedness to the issue. This anyway happened and what we've seen is what Michelle was discussing earlier and talking about the crisis in confidence and political level crisis. And on there that we are really seeing have been experiencing that one and there's been so many, so much anti-migration narrative, xenophobic writings, hate speech, etc. Rise of different anti-migration really raises the most neonazis movements now here. Just two weeks ago one guy lost his life and there's big demonstrations across the country today just saying that now this is enough. And finally like many political parties, politicians are now coming and saying it clearly that this is enough of hate speech now. But the question is that do people really have to die in fights on streets that politicians have the courage to say that enough is enough. And this is I think one point. Another thing I think this brings to what you were just earlier saying that the crisis are so different. We have this kind of political confidence crisis here but I think the other real crisis is there when people really die in large numbers when they try to reach and they don't have the regular migration channels available. And at the same time many countries are tightening the rules, regulations, policies, making even impossible to come through the regular channels when the conditions for getting asylum and residence permits are tightened, conditions for family unifications are tightened and limited. What are then the options? Then you don't have any other option than seek smugglers, traffickers and that's just a vicious circle getting just further and further worse situation for those who are really in need to move and escape horrors. Thank you very much. Any further questions and comments? Gentlemen in the front. Yes, this is a comment. If we look at the world today since 9-11 when the US coalition launched the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the situation of refugees and other calamities that ensued. And then we come over to the Arab Spring starting with the emolition in Indonesia and what is going on today. I mean the world is highly unsafe. It's like there are crisis everywhere and it appears humanity is not able to manage the crisis. And we see a situation where it's like everyone is drifting away or running away from their real solutions. At times we have situations where the voices of the affected people is not heard. Decisions are made at the UN in New York and in other high bureaucratic places for people in some isolated part of the world who do not have any idea about what is going on and all this kind of things. I think that for the world to be a safe place for all of us, we need to look at the root causes of conflicts. Why are there so many wars? Syria today, no one knows when the conflict in Syria is going to end. In Libya it is the same situation. In Yemen, arms are in the hands of even children. In Central African Republic it is the same situation. Across borders and so on there is a lot of restlessness. I think that we really, really need to address the root causes. Trump even in the USA, if anyone who listens to all the things he says about this campaign and in Europe, many of the countries, they are all going towards the far right. To tighten the borders, to send immigrants back to their home countries, to cut development aid, that there are enough poor and homeless people, veterans in the USA. Why is money being given out to take care of poor people in Africa? Is that our problem? It's all over Europe. In Germany Angela Merkel is humanitarian, but there are others. Her party recently lost the election to far right movements that are growing all over the world. So I think that like the President of Turkey said in the United Nations, that there is need for reforms. Even at the level of the United Nations where the Security Council since the Second World War has remained the same, five countries making decisions for the rest of the world. And this in a way has led to a lot of conflicts because when they vet all that, this country should be attacked. The country would be attacked. And in some situations we have cases where the US for example can unilaterally launch a war against another country. So I think that if there are reforms like more representatives from every continent in the Security Council making decisions in a consensual way and trying to see how we could stop the wars that are going on in the world, if we have that kind of approach it's going to make the world a better place. If we don't approach, if we don't see things in this way and we only wait for the conflicts to grow and grow like in the Middle East where we have, I mean Israel and the other Arab countries looking at each other like hawks trying to rearm themselves every day and all the time. If we have that kind of tension in the world, the conflicts will go and grow and there will be a time when I wonder if you manage to be able to address the problem. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let me turn that comment into a question. Something I'm acutely aware of is that those of us who work on refugee and migration issues spend a lot of time talking to each other. And it's very rarely that I go to a meeting where I don't agree with everything that everybody says and taking up your comment about the far right and about people who are not in favour of migration or providing asylum to refugees. I just wonder whether we should be engaging more with people of that school of thought. It's very easy to talk to people that agree with us. It's much more difficult to talk to people who disagree with us. And I noticed at the UN summit earlier this week that even there some governments took the opportunity to make quite hostile statements about migrants. I won't say which countries but I think you can probably guess which ones they were. Michelle, are there ways in which we can engage with these actors who are very important actors in the migration field but who don't necessarily start with the same normative assumptions that we have? I think that's a hugely important point, Jeff, and actually one that I've been thinking about and IOM has been thinking about and struggling with. And I think we need to recognise that we do live in a world of nation states and as part of that governments have a responsibility to their own populations including to maintain their safety, their security and their well-being. And therefore the decision about which non-nationals come into their countries, for what reasons, for how long, it will remain an attribute of sovereignty related to those legitimate questions about maintaining the well-being of the populace. And when you have irregular migration and certainly when you have large-scale irregular migration it challenges that very ability of the nation state to make those judgments. And of course unfortunately there have been very few but very prominent instances where there's been security related concerns linked to that. It creates a conflation in the public mind of governments lost control and now we're being overrun including by some people who have negative intentions with respect to our populations. So I think we have to, Jeff, engage and recognise the responsibility of governments to protect their citizens and the well-being of their citizens and recognise that but also engage them in a discussion that also makes clear that the overwhelming majority, I mean in fact 99.999% of migrants and refugees coming in have not been linked to criminal activity, to terrorism, the two loss of jobs, that's a really false equation, the numbers simply don't bear that out. So while recognising their legitimate concerns pointing out the fact that the refugees and migrants are not negatively affecting those concerns and in fact can help on some of those issues. And so to really change the debate around those to one that is more fact-based and recognises their needs, their legitimate needs to ensure the health and well-being and safety and security of their populations and then allow for I hope a longer term discussion. Great, thank you. Well our time is unfortunately up so with that I'd like to thank the audience for its very active engagement in this discussion and more specifically to Michelle and Sandhula for two excellent presentations. I know they have to rush back to Geneva a little bit later this afternoon but I'm sure for the next few minutes if you want to engage with them on a personal basis I'm sure they'll be able to do so. So thanks to our speakers, thank you again and enjoy the coffee break and the final plenary this afternoon. Thank you very much.