Box 32: Other Governments’ Involvement “It is very rarely mentioned by other governments…For example, I just finished [meetings] with the German government and with the EU. During these, the word ‘statelessness’ was not on the agenda other than our opening [statements]… We had a lot of momentum coming out of last October but now that it's been 15 months, now that the Global Refugee Forum happened between the high-level segment, and this year with the pandemic…[governments] have completely changed priorities. I feel like it was a long time ago that we were having really substantive conversations with governments other than the US on statelessness.” Donors and other partners. Although the Evaluation Team did not conduct a full review of other donors, there seemed to be engagement on statelessness by other donor countries, but not much donor funding, as explained in Box 32 and in the section on PRM funding, above. There was also funding coming from private donors via donations to both CSOs and INGOs. Some examples include OSF, which funds and partners with CSOs in Nepal to work on legal identity and statelessness issues. In the Dominican Republic, the American Jewish World Service provides funding to grassroots CSOs, many of which also receive funding or support from UNHCR, and they have also advocated with PRM and DOS on the situation in the Dominican Republic. In Thailand, the Diakonia Foundation (Sweden) and PLAN International (which does receive some funds from governments) support local CSOs working on statelessness. Both OSF and the ISI, which are funded by private foundations, also fund statelessness work in multiple other countries worldwide. The research also found that there was significant statelessness-adjacent programming by other actors, including UN partners that assist stateless populations without being specifically targeted towards statelessness. The Evaluation Team concludes that more donor government support for statelessness work beyond donating to UNHCR’s Global Appeal and, indirectly, through donations to other UN agencies is needed. EQ3: WHAT CHANGES OR UPDATES NEED TO BE MADE TO PRM’S STATELESSNESS STRATEGY TO STRENGTHEN THE ABILITY OF STATELESSNESS INITIATIVES TO PREVENT AND REDUCE STATELESSNESS, INCLUDING PRM MONITORING OF STATELESSNESS ACTIVITIES OVERSEAS? 5.1.10 PRM monitoring of UNHCR PRP and Office of Multilateral Coordination and External Relations (MCE) at PRM and UNHCR Headquarters. PRM managers meet with UNHCR senior managers twice per year for high-level discussions on the PRM-UNHCR Framework for Cooperation. During the meetings, PRM and UNHCR discuss mutual policy, program, and funding priorities for the year. Interviews with UNHCR senior management revealed that statelessness was not discussed significantly in the last year (see Box 33). However, UNHCR recognized that there is a need for a renewed coordinated diplomatic strategy with the U.S. This is important, given the level of U.S. influence on advancing statelessness goals and the momentum built to date. Box 33: Global UNHCR Monitoring “To be honest in the bilateral meetings I have had with the United States, which focused on protection, or the bilateral meetings with the United States at headquarters, the subject of statelessness did not come up to any significant degree. There also has not been much questioning about reporting on these issues either.” Headquarters working-level (Geneva–DC). Regular global-level monitoring takes place between PRP (the PRM Statelessness Focal Point) and the UNHCR’s DIP Statelessness Section. The close relationship that has developed over the years is built on mutual respect and accountability. In the lead-up to the development of the GAP, advice and feedback was sought from PRM at the early stages. The organizations carry out quarterly calls for updates on funding, staffing, GAP Actions, and diplomatic opportunities and hold strategy sessions. They also have frequent discussions about actions taken between the Group of Friends. 24